Wakilii

Yedida Padde v Hamidali Ali (HCT-04-CV-CA-0045-2008)

High Court · [2010] UGHC 169 · 2010 Appeal Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Magistrate Grade I ruling on preliminary objection concerning limitation
Decision
Appeal struck out for want of leave; matter remitted to trial court for completion

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Held that an appeal from an interlocutory ruling overruling a preliminary objection on limitation requires leave of court under Order 44 rule 2 CPR. The magistrate's ruling overruling the preliminary objection and ordering the suit to proceed was an interlocutory order, not a final decree. Where mandatory leave is not obtained, the appellate court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Outcome

Appeal struck out for want of leave; matter remitted to trial court for completion

Facts

The appellant filed an appeal against the ruling of the Magistrate Grade I Tororo dismissing his preliminary objection that the suit was barred by limitation. The underlying suit concerned an alleged trespass on land. The appellant raised a preliminary objection on limitation which the trial magistrate overruled, ordering the suit to proceed to hearing on merits. The appellant then appealed this ruling without first obtaining leave of court. The respondent raised a preliminary objection to the competence of the appeal on the ground that leave was required under Order 44 rule 2 CPR before appealing an interlocutory order.

Issues

  1. Whether an appeal from an interlocutory ruling overruling a preliminary objection on limitation requires leave of court under Order 44 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the dismissal of a preliminary objection on limitation amounts to a decree or an order for purposes of determining the right of appeal.

Orders

  • Appeal struck out with costs.
  • File referred back to the trial court for completion.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave Requirement — Interlocutory Orders
An appeal does not lie as of right from an interlocutory ruling overruling a preliminary objection; leave of court must be obtained under Order 44 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules before filing such an appeal.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Jurisdiction — Effect of Failure to Obtain Leave
Where leave required for a competent appeal to be filed is not obtained, an appellate court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the appeal must be struck out as incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Interlocutory Orders — Policy Against Piecemeal Appeals
It is not necessary to appeal against an interlocutory ruling separate from the final decision; allowing appeals on interlocutory matters may lead to a multiplicity of appeals upon incidental orders when such matters can more conveniently be considered in an appeal from the final decision.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • B.D. Bilimoria & Another v T.D. Bilimoria [1962] EA 198
  • Sanyu Lwanga Musoke v Sam Galiwango (SCCA 48 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Yedida Padde v Hamidali Ali (HCT-04-CV-CA-0045-2008) [2010] UGHC 169 (24 August 2010)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.