Nyamutale and Others v Bugaki Sub-County Local Government (HCT-01-CV-ML-0004-2024) [2025] UGHC 443 (19 June 2025)

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT FORT PORTAL

HCT-01-CV-ML-0004-2024

(ARISING FROM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 80 OF 2024)

(ARISING FROM HCT-01-CV-CS-LD-NO. 40 OF 2024)

1. NYAMUTALE SOLOMON

- 2. NYAMUTALE JENIFER RUTH - 3. BIRUNGI WILSON AKANYONYI - 4. MONDAY JOSHUA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANTS

VERSUS

BUGAAKI SUB-COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT :::: RESPONDENT

BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE VINCENT WAGONA

RULING

Background:

1. On 13th November 2024, the Deputy Registrar of this Court, *His Worship Matenga Francis Dawa* delivered a Ruling in Miscellaneous Application No.


80 of 2024 wherein he dismissed the Applicants' Application for a temporary injunction with costs.

2. On 27th November 2024, being dissatisfied with the said decision of the learned Deputy Registrar, the Applicants filed the instant Appeal under Order

41 Rules 1, 2 and 9 as well as Order 50 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking Orders that; -

- (1)The Ruling and Orders of the Deputy Registrar dismissing the Appellant's Application for a temporary injunction be set aside; - (2)A temporary injunction be issued on the suit land to maintain the status quo pending the hearing and determination of Civil Suit No. 40 of 2024. - (3)Costs of the Application be provided for.

Grounds of the Application:

- 3. The instant Appeal is premised on grounds that; - (1)The learned Deputy Registrar dismissed the Appellants' application for a temporary injunction and did not find that the Appellants are entitled to a temporary injunction.


- (2)The Appellants civil suit pending before this Honourable Court has high chances of success and it will be rendered nugatory if this Application is not granted. - (3)The Respondent is carrying out activities on the suit land that are likely to change its user purpose. - (4)The Appellants are likely to suffer irreparable damage if the temporary injunction is not granted. - (5)The status quo will also change if this Application is not granted. - (6)It is just, fair, and adequate in the circumstances for court to issue a temporary injunction order.

Respondent's Affidavit in Reply:

- 4. The Respondent opposed this Application through the Affidavit in Reply of its Sub County Chief, *Mr. Mutabazi Munir,* who deposed in brief that; - - (1)The main suit, HCC No. 040 of 2024 has no probability of success. - (2)The Applicants will not suffer any irreparable loss, injury and/or damages that cannot be adequately compensated by an award of damages in case the Application is denied.


- (3)The Applicants have never been in occupation, possession and usage of the suit land. - (4)The Respondent has at all material times been in possession, control, ownership and custody of the suit land and has since registered the same and acquired a certificate of title.

Representation and Hearing:

5. The Applicants were represented by *M/s Ahabwe James & Co. Advocates* while the Respondents were represented by the Attorney General's Chambers. Both Counsel addressed me by way of written submissions which I have considered.

Issues:

- 6. In my view, the instant Appeal raises the following issues for resolution. - *(1)Whether the appeal is proper before court.* - *(2)Whether the appeal should be allowed.*

RESOLUTION:

Issues One: Whether this Appeal is proper before court.


7. Order 50 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that: *"Any person aggrieved by any order of a registrar may appeal from the order to the High Court. The appeal shall be by motion on notice."* On the other hand, Section 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that:

*"Limitation for Appeals*

- *(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in any other law, every appeal shall be entered—* - *(a) within thirty days of the date of the decree or order of the court; or (b) within seven days of the date of the order of a registrar, as the case may be, appealed against; but the appellate court may for good cause admit an appeal though the period of limitation prescribed by this*

*section has elapsed."*

8. In the case of Alinyo vs. R [1974] EA 544, it was held that the right to appeal is a creature of statute, and that for one to appeal he or she must have a right to appeal granted by law. In the case of Hamam Singh Bhogal t/a. Hamam Singh & Co. vs. Javda Karsan (1953) 20 EACA 17 at 18, it was held that a party who seeks to avail himself or herself of the right of appeal must strictly comply with the conditions prescribed by the statute. Therefore, by virtue of

Order 50 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a party aggrieved by the


decision of the Registrar has an automatic right of appeal to the judge. However, by virtue of Section 79 (1) (b) of the Civil Procedure Act, such appeal must be filed within seven (7) days from the date the decision is made.

- 9. Where an appeal is not filed within 7 days as provided for under Section 79 (1) (b), of the Civil Procedure Act, then leave must be sought to appeal out - of time. The application for appeal should be filed and determined by either the registrar or the judge as the case may be. In Murangwa Bruno & Anor vs. Luyimbazi James, Misc. Appeal No. 0016 of 2019, the *Hon. Justice Kaweesa* observed thus: *"Under Section 79(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules appeals against the decision of the Deputy Registrar are within 7 (seven) days from the date of the decision."* - 10. In this case the decision appealed against was made by the Deputy Registrar, His Worship Matenga Francis Dawa on 13th November 2024. The appeal against the said decision should have been filed within 7 days after 13th November 2024. However, the instant appeal was filed on 27th November 2024 well outside the allowed seven days' window and the Appellants did not seek any leave of court to be allowed to file the appeal out of time. An Appeal filed outside the allowed timelines without leave of court is a nullity, and whatever legal process emanating from it also becomes a nullity.


I therefore find that this appeal is not properly before the court having been filed out of time without obtaining leave of court and it is hereby struck out with no order as to costs. I so Order.

Dated at Fort Portal this 11th day of June 2025


Vincent Wagona

High Court Judge

FORTPORTAL

Ruling delivered on the 19th day of June 2025