[2025] UGCA 234

[2025] UGCA 234

The Court of Appeal held that the respondent's affidavit in reply was competent, as the deponent was not in personal conduct of the case and was privy to relevant facts, and a valid practicing certificate was on record. The court found that the application disclosed serious questions of law and fact, particularly...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] UGCA 234
Parties
Applicant: Apollo Bright Bweyakye; Applicant: Christopher Ngabirano; Applicant: Fred Ziryabareeba; Applicant: Stanley Omwehangire; Respondent: Professor Sam Tulya-Muhika
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
18 July 2025
Case Number
Civil Application 239 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court
Outcome
application allowed; leave to appeal to the Supreme Court granted; costs to abide the outcome of the appeal
Judges
Musa Ssekaana, JA/JCC
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time, Notice of Appeal, Dilatory Conduct, Affidavit Competence, Land Dispute
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Land and Property Leave to Appeal Extension of Time Notice of Appeal Dilatory Conduct Affidavit Competence Land Dispute

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Apollo Bright Bweyakye

Applicant

Christopher Ngabirano

Applicant

Fred Ziryabareeba

Applicant

Stanley Omwehangire

Applicant

Professor Sam Tulya-Muhika

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's affidavit in reply is defective, incompetent and illegal.
  2. 2 Whether the application discloses prima facie grounds of appeal which merit serious consideration by the Supreme Court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are guilty of dilatory conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the respondent's affidavit in reply was competent, as the deponent was not in personal conduct of the case and was privy to relevant facts, and a valid practicing certificate was on record. The court found that the application disclosed serious questions of law and fact, particularly regarding the propriety of the Notice of Appeal and the extension of time, which merited consideration by the Supreme Court. The court emphasized that it was not the forum to reassess the merits of the underlying appeal but to determine whether the intended appeal was arguable and not frivolous. On the issue of dilatory conduct, the court found that the applicants had made...

Court Disposition

application allowed; leave to appeal to the Supreme Court granted; costs to abide the outcome of the appeal

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the applicants to appeal to the Supreme Court against the ruling and orders of the Court of Appeal in Civil Application Nos. 100 & 103 of 2020.
  • Costs shall abide the outcome of the appeal.