Share
Uganda Muslim Supreme Council v The Board of Governors Rwenzori Islamic Institute (Civil Appeal No 96 of 2014) [2022] UGCA 360 (15 November 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] UGCA 360
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Kakuru, JA, Kibeedi, JA, Gashirabake, JA
- Case number
- Civil Appeal No 96 of 2014
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Kakuru, JA, Kibeedi, JA, Gashirabake, JA
- Case number
- Civil Appeal No 96 of 2014
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was incompetent because the appellant failed to seek and obtain leave from the High Court to appeal against the order for security for costs. Rule 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules expressly requires leave for such appeals, and the record showed no evidence that leave had been sought or granted. The absence of leave deprived the court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and as such, the appeal was struck out with costs awarded to the respondent.
Court disposition
appeal_struck_out
Orders
- The appeal is struck out.
- The appellant shall pay the costs of this appeal to the respondent.
02
Material facts
Parties
Uganda Muslim Supreme Council
Appellant Counsel: Isaac KugonzaThe Board of Governors Rwenzori Saad Islamic Institute
Respondent Counsel: Richard Bwiruka03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Struck Out
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appeal against an order for security for costs is appealable as of right.
- 02
Whether leave to appeal was sought and obtained from the High Court as required.
- 03
Whether failure to obtain leave renders the appeal incompetent.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant, through counsel, argued that they were freshly instructed in the matter and needed to establish whether previous counsel had sought leave from the High Court to appeal the order for security for costs. No substantive argument was presented on the merits of the appealability or the requirement for leave.
- Respondent
- The respondent, through counsel, maintained that the appeal was not properly before the court as no leave to appeal had been sought or obtained from the High Court, which is mandatory for such orders under Rule 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The respondent requested that the appeal be struck out with costs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules
An appeal against an order for security for costs is not appealable as of right; leave of the High Court is mandatory.
- 02
Rule 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Failure to obtain leave to appeal renders the appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was incompetent because the appellant failed to seek and obtain leave from the High Court to appeal against the order for security for costs. Rule 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules expressly requires leave for such appeals, and the record showed no evidence that leave had been sought or granted. The absence of leave deprived the court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and as such, the appeal was struck out with costs awarded to the respondent.
Obiter and limits
- Counsel for the appellant was reminded that procedural requirements such as seeking leave are mandatory and not mere technicalities.
- The court noted that costs may be personally imposed on counsel where appeals are filed without proper procedural compliance.
Court disposition
appeal_struck_out
- The appeal is struck out.
- The appellant shall pay the costs of this appeal to the respondent.
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
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
CIVIL APPEAL NO 96 OF 2014
(ARISING FROM HCT - 01 - CV - LD - MA - 051 OF 2014)
(ARISING FROM HCT - 01 - CV - LD - CA - 043 OF 2013)
UGANDA MUSLIM SUPREME COUNCIL--------------------------------APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS RWENZORI ---------------RESPONDENT SAAD ISLAMIC INSTITUTE----------------
HON. MR. JUSTICE KENNETH KAKURU, J. A. BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE MUZAMIRU KIBEDI MUTANGULA, J. A. HON. MR. JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER GASHIRABAKE, J. A.
DECREE ON APPEAL
This appeal coming up for hearing this 15<sup>th</sup> day of November, 2022 in the presence of Mr. Isaac Kugonza, Counsel for the Appellant and in the presence of Mr. Richard Bwiruka, Counsel for the Respondent;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS;
- 1. That the appeal is struck out. - 2. That the Appellant shall pay the costs of this appeal to the respondent.
We approve; Isaac Kugonza Bwiruka Richard Counsel for the Respondent Counsel for the Appellant DATED at Kampala this .................................... ........, 2022 REGISTRAR $\frac{1}{22}$ Extracted by; M/s Kaahwa, Kafuuzi, Bwiruka & Co. Advocates Plot 38 Mugurusi Road P. O. Box 804, Fort Portal.
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA (COA) AT KAMPALA
CIVIL APPEAL NUMBER 0096 OF 2014
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE:
$\mathbf{z}$
$\mathsf{S}$
$20$
HON. MR. JUSTICE KENNETH KAKURU, JA $10$ HON. MR. JUSTICE MUZAMIRU M. KIBEEDI JA HON. MR. JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER GASHIRABAKE, JA
PARTIES:
UGANDA MUSLIM SUPREME COUNCIL::APPELLANT $15$
$VS.$
THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS RWENZORI SAAD INSLAMIC INSTITUTE::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT
Date: 15<sup>TH</sup> NOVEMBER, 2022
$\mathbf{1}$
<sup>5</sup> Appearances:
Mr. Isaac Kugonza: Counsel for Appellant
Mr. Richard Bwiruka: Counsel for Respondent
Nanyanga Susan: Court Clerk
Evel5rn Ampiire : Transcriber
If it may please you my lords, my name is Richard Bwiruka and I appear for the respondent. My learned friend Mr. Kugonza <sup>15</sup> Isaac appears for the appellant. The respondent is represented in court by Mr. Hajji Bigidard Saad.
Mr. Kugonza:
My lords the appellant is equally represented by Mr. Abjiji Kelemire
<sup>20</sup> Justice
Counsel is this an appeal against an application for security for costs?
Yes my lord.
Justice Kakuru:
Is it appealable as of right?
Mr. Kugonzai
<sup>10</sup> No my lord.
Justice Kakuru:
Did you seek leave at the High Court for leave to appeal against the order that it is not appealable as of right?
Mr. Kugonrzaz
<sup>15</sup> My lord we a-re freshly instructed in the matter.
Justice Kakuru:
Did you counsel? Did you seek leave and obtain it from the High Court and if so just show us the order.
Mr. Kugolnzai
<sup>20</sup> My lord I need to establish whether previous counsel in the matter sought the leave of the High Court.
<sup>5</sup> Justice Kakuru:
We have all the papers on this file and there is no such.
My lords I would strike out this appeal on account that it is not appealable as of right and no leave was sought at the High Court and no leave has been sought here.
<sup>10</sup> Justice Kibeedi:
My lord I would agree but there is the question of costs, counsel needs to show cause why counsel should not personally pay the costs.
<sup>5</sup> Justice Kakuru:
This appeal is hereby struck out for failure by the appellant to seek leave to appeal which is mandatory. The order appealed for is not appealable as of right under Rule 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules with costs to the respondent.
HON. JUSTICES OF APPEAL
15TH NOVEMBER 20/22
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.