Uganda v Ntambi Vicent (Miscellaneous Application No. 139 of 2019)

Observed later treatment

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the DPP's application for a certificate that an intended Supreme Court appeal raised questions of law of great public or general importance. The application was time-barred, having been filed about ten months after the impugned judgment, far beyond the 14 days required by Rule 38(1) of the Supreme Court Rules Directions, with no explanation offered for the delay. Independently, on the merits, the Court held that the alleged question—whether reliance could be placed on a witness's testimony about the contents of an untendered expert report—did not transcend the circumstances of the case nor bear significantly on the public interest. The earlier appeal merely involved re-appraisal of evidence, raising no substantial point of law of general importance.

Outcome

Application for a certificate of importance dismissed, both for being filed out of time and on the merits.

Facts

The respondent was charged before a Grade I Magistrate with forgery and uttering false documents relating to the transfer of mailo land at Kyadondo Block 229 Plot 1368, allegedly fraudulently acquired from Matilda Bulya alias Nulu Bulya. After an initial acquittal on no case to answer, the DPP appealed; the High Court ordered the respondent to be put on his defence and the Court of Appeal directed defence before another Magistrate on the existing record. He was then convicted on all counts and sentenced to concurrent terms. The High Court dismissed his appeal and ordered cancellation of his title. On a second appeal, the Court of Appeal (Kiryabwire, Muhanguzi and Madrama, JJA) allowed the appeal on 11 October 2018, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered his reinstatement as registered proprietor. The DPP sought a certificate of importance to pursue a further appeal to the Supreme Court, contending the case raised questions of law concerning the evidential weight of an expert report (by Ezati Samuel) that was never tendered but whose contents were testified to by Pw6.

Issues

1. Whether the application for a certificate of importance was filed within the time prescribed by law.
2. Whether the intended appeal to the Supreme Court raises a question of law of great public or general importance warranting issuance of a certificate of importance.

Orders

• The application is dismissed.
• No order is made as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Judicature Act s.6(2)
• Judicature Act s.5(5)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 Rule 38(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rules 41(1), 43(1), 43(2), 44(1)
• Penal Code Act s.347
• Penal Code Act s.349
• Penal Code Act s.190

Cases cited (2)

• Asumani Mugyenyi v M. Buwule (Civil Application No. 245 of 2011)
• Supreme Court of Kenya Application No. 4 of 2010: Hermanus Phillippus Steyn vs Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscoue

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Munazzanati Al Dawa Al Islamiya v Zuena said Hassan and Another (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 173 of 2021)

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.