Share
Kapiriri v International Investments and 5 Others (Civil Application Number 0125 of 2015) [2018] UGCA 255 (23 February 2018)
- Citation
- [2018] UGCA 255
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Kakuru, JA
- Case number
- Civil Application Number 0125 of 2015
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Kakuru, JA
- Case number
- Civil Application Number 0125 of 2015
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time, as the particulars of fraud only became known during the trial and were not available at the time of filing the original suit. The absence of the respondents and their counsel, despite being duly served, did not preclude the court from proceeding. The interests of justice required that the applicant be allowed to seek leave to appeal the High Court's decision dismissing his application to amend the plaint. The court granted extension of time to file the application for leave, granted leave to appeal, and set a deadline for filing the substantive appeal. The application for stay of proceedings was deferred until the appeal was filed.
Court disposition
application granted in part
Orders
- The applicant is granted extension of time within which to lodge his application for leave to appeal against the decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Namundi Godfrey in Misc. Application No. 170 of 2012 delivered on 19th February 2014.
- The applicant is granted leave to appeal the decision of the High Court of Uganda at Jinja given on 19th February 2014, dismissing the applicant's application for leave to amend the plaint.
- The applicant should file his appeal by 14th March 2018 and the application for stay of proceedings in Civil Suit No. 106 of 2007 may thereafter be heard.
02
Material facts
Parties
B. W. Kapiriri
Applicant Counsel: Kyeyago EdwardInternational Investments Ltd
RespondentKaliisa Karangwa Moses
RespondentElizabeth Mwigundu
RespondentMitala Buluba Moses
RespondentMukungu Balat
RespondentBuluba Julius Michael
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal against the High Court decision.
- 02
Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal the dismissal of his application to amend the plaint to include fraud.
- 03
Whether the applicant's appeal should be allowed to proceed despite delay.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant seeks extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal against the decision of Justice Namundi Godfrey in Miscellaneous Application No. 170 of 2012, which dismissed his application for leave to amend the plaint. The applicant argues that the particulars of fraud only became known during cross-examination and were not available at the time of filing the suit. He further submits that the trial is part-heard and the cause of action is trespass, but new facts regarding the first respondent's title and alleged fraud have emerged, necessitating amendment of the plaint and inclusion of the Commissioner for Land Registration.
- Respondent
- The respondents and their counsel were absent and did not present any arguments before the court.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules; general principles of justice and fairness.
Extension of time may be granted where sufficient cause is shown and justice requires that the applicant be allowed to pursue his appeal.
- 02
Section 79 of the Civil Procedure Act; case law on leave to appeal.
Leave to appeal may be granted where the applicant demonstrates that there are arguable grounds and the interests of justice require appellate review.
- 03
Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Amendment of pleadings may be allowed to enable determination of the real questions in controversy, especially where new facts arise during trial.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time, as the particulars of fraud only became known during the trial and were not available at the time of filing the original suit. The absence of the respondents and their counsel, despite being duly served, did not preclude the court from proceeding. The interests of justice required that the applicant be allowed to seek leave to appeal the High Court's decision dismissing his application to amend the plaint. The court granted extension of time to file the application for leave, granted leave to appeal, and set a deadline for filing the substantive appeal. The application for stay of proceedings was deferred until the appeal was filed.
Obiter and limits
- The court emphasized the importance of ensuring that appeals are ready to be heard once leave is granted, to avoid unnecessary delay.
- The court noted that omnibus applications should be avoided and that each substantive application should be filed separately.
Court disposition
application granted in part
- The applicant is granted extension of time within which to lodge his application for leave to appeal against the decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Namundi Godfrey in Misc. Application No. 170 of 2012 delivered on 19th February 2014.
- The applicant is granted leave to appeal the decision of the High Court of Uganda at Jinja given on 19th February 2014, dismissing the applicant's application for leave to amend the plaint.
- The applicant should file his appeal by 14th March 2018 and the application for stay of proceedings in Civil Suit No. 106 of 2007 may thereafter be heard.
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Judgment

$\mathsf{S}$
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA (COA) AT KAMPALA CIVIL APPLICATION NUMBER 0125 OF 2015
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE:
HON. MR. JUSTICE KENNETH KAKURU, JA $10$
PARTIES
B. W. KAPIRIRI :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
VS.
INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS &
5 OTHERS ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Date: 23<sup>RD</sup> February 2018
Appearances:
t/
Mr. Kyeyago Edward: Counsel for Applicant
Absent : counsel for the resPondent
Nayrga Ziddy: Court Clerk
n
Mr. Kyevago:
My lord Kyeyago Edward for the applicant. The respondents are not in court neither his lawyer.
We were served by court, we don't know whether counsel for
<sup>15</sup> the respondents
Court:
They were senred
Mr. Kveyago:
They are represented by Okalangaro chambers
Court:

<sup>5</sup> Proceed
what do you want?
Mr. Kveyago:
Your lordship we pray we are ready to proceed with the application if the lawyers for the respondents were duly
10 Court:
What do you want in this application?
Mr. Kyevago:
My lord the application is seeking for extension of time within which to file an application for leave against the decision of <sup>15</sup> Justice Namundi Godfrey in MA number 170 of 2OO2.
Court:
What was the application about?
Mr. KyeyaEo:
The application was seeking for leave to file an application <sup>20</sup> amend the plaint
Court:
<sup>5</sup> And leave was denied
Mr.
The application was dismissed for leave to amend the plaint
Court:
You are seeking an application to amend the plaint so that fraud can be included
Mr. Kyevago:
Because the particulars were not in the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time when he was filing the suit. Even in their WSD they never indicated but only came up at the hearing of the suit when the 1"t respondent or defendant was saying he had a title of the suit land.
Court:
What is the position of the case at the trial court?
Mr. Kvevago:
20 The trial is not complete, they were about to finish the plaintiffs side then these issues c€rme about. So it is part heard. This issue of fraud came about in cross examination
Court:
<sup>5</sup> So what is the cause of action in the main case?
Mr. Kyevago:
The cause of action in the main case was trespass. The plaintiff was evicted from the suit land by the l"t defendant and the agents of the l"t defendant but he didn't know that <sup>10</sup> the l"t defendant had acquired a title over the suit land. So he wanted to add the issues of fraud and also wanted to add the commissioner for land registration.
Court:
Where is your record of appeal, proceedings?
<sup>15</sup> Mr.
My lord we had only lodged a notice of appeal
Court:
You went home and slept
Mr. Kveyago:
<sup>20</sup> Your lordship we ca.n file the record within a very short time but we had only fiIed the notice of appeal which is on record
Court:
<sup>5</sup> How long will it take you to file a record of appeal?
Mr. Kyevago:
Within 2 weeks to get the file from Jinja. My lord we can do within a week
Court:
<sup>10</sup> I want to be satisfied that once the order is granted the appeal is also ready and the appeal can be heard.
> So you have an application for leave, you have an application for extension of time and you also have an application to stay proceedings. A11 in one application
<sup>15</sup> Mr. Kyeyago:
Yes my lord.
Court:
I have granted you an application for extension of time within which to fiIe the application for leave. You have 3 applications <sup>20</sup> extension of time within which to file an application for leave, then the application for leave, then the stay of proceedings. I am only granting an application for extension of time so that
<sup>5</sup> you can now go and file a substantive application for leave. And where you have a record.
> Okay I would grant an application for extension of time to file the application for leave and also grant leave to file an appeal against the decision of the High Court in High Court MA number L7O of 2012. TWo orders;
- 1. You are granted extension within which to file because an omnibus application. - 2. Also grant you leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court. - hear the application for stay of proceedings. The appeal should be filed by 14tt' of March 2OL8. 20 <sup>15</sup> I have not given you stay of proceedings and your appeal is not yet here. Your substantive appeal against that decision is not here. What you have here is leave to appeal and extension of time and also leave to appeal. I am givingyou up to 21"t of March for you to have filed the appeal itself and when you have filed the appeal itself then you will come back for me to
Mr. Kveyago:
a
Most obliged.

$\mathbf{A} = \begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{A} & \mathbf{A} & \mathbf{A} & \mathbf{A} \\ \mathbf{A} & \mathbf{A} & \mathbf{A} & \mathbf{A} \\ \mathbf{A} & \mathbf{A} & \mathbf{A} & \mathbf{A} \end{bmatrix}$
HON. JUSTICE KENNETH KAKURU, JA
$\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\\$
23<sup>RD</sup> FEBRUARY 2018
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 125 OF 2015
(Arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 160 of 2014)
[Arising from Misc. Application No. 170 of 2012]
[Arising from Civil Suit No. 106 of 2007]
B. W. KAPIRIRI :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
VERSUS
\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
- 1. INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LTD - 2. KALIISA KARANGWA MOSES - 3. ELIZABETH MWIGUNDU
4. MITALA BULUBA MOSES
- 5. MUKUNGU BALAT - 6. BULUBA JULIUS MICHAEL
ORDER
THIS APPLICATION coming up for final disposal on the $23<sup>rd</sup>$ day of February 2018 before the Honourable Mr. Justice Kenneth Kakuru Justice of Court of Appeal in the presence of the Applicant and Mr. Kyeyago Edward Counsel for the Applicant and in the absence of the Respondents and their lawyers having been duly served. It is hereby ordered that;
1. The Applicant is granted extension of time within which to lodge his application for leave to appeal against the decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Namundi Godfrey in Misc. Application No. 170 of 2012 delivered on the $19^{\text{th}}$ day of February 2014.
- 2. The Applicant is granted leave to appeal the decision of the High Court of Uganda at Jinja given on 19<sup>th</sup> day of February 2014, dismissing the Applicant's Application for leave to amend the plaint. - 3. The Applicant should file his appeal by $14$ <sup>th</sup> of March 2018 and the Application for stay of proceedings in Civil Suit No. 106 of 2007 may thereafter, be heard.
$13^{\text{th}}$ day GIVEN UNDER my hand and seal of this Honourable Court this .. of ....................................
REGISTRAR/DEPUTY REGISTRAR
EXTRACTED BY;
R. Nsubuga & Co. Advocates
Plot 3 Parliament Avenue
Raja Chambers 4<sup>th</sup> Floor
Suit No. 053, P. O. Box 25590 Kampala
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.