Automated Summary
Key Facts
Applicants Mwikwabe Marwa and Ndege Matiko sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal under Section 5(1) of The Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979 after losing three previous appeals in lower courts regarding a dispute over an 80 x 90 paces strip of land in Tarime. The land was allocated to respondent Matiko Wanse (deceased, represented by Kitende Wanse) in 1974, who had occupied it for over 25 years planting permanent and seasonal crops. The applicants, who were new generation local government leaders, attempted to dispossess the respondent in 2001 but failed in all lower courts including Tarime Urban Primary Court, Tarime District Court, and Mwanza High Court. The court determined the matter was primarily a question of fact regarding ownership and appearance of the land, which lower courts had already satisfactorily resolved.
Issues
- The second ground raised whether the trial primary court had jurisdiction to try this case. The court found that Nyaburongo Primary Court was not functioning, but this did not bar primary court magistrates stationed at Tarime urban primary court to exercise jurisdiction in any primary courts in Tarime District, subject to administrative arrangements by the District Magistrate or District Registrar.
- The fourth ground questioned whether it was proper to sue the applicants in their own capacity instead of the village government. The court determined that while three village government leaders were ring-leaders in the dispute, the first and second applicants pursued the matter in their own capacities and were not entitled to take cover under the village government.
- The court examined whether applicants Mwikwabe Marwa and Ndege Matiko had established sufficient grounds to obtain leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The applicants advanced four grounds, including whether the trial primary court should have visited the disputed plot and drawn a sketch map. The court determined that the first and third grounds related to questions of fact rather than law, as the lower courts had already satisfactorily resolved the ownership dispute over the 80 x 90 paces strip of land in Tarime.
Holdings
The applicants failed to justify any ground on a point of law for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal as all four grounds were insufficient. The application for leave to appeal is therefore dismissed with costs.
Remedies
The court dismissed the applicants' application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The application was lodged under Section 5(1) of The Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979. The court found that the applicants had already lost three previous appeals at lower courts and the grounds raised were matters of fact rather than law. The applicants were not entitled to claim the village government as their representative. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.
Legal Principles
Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal must be based on a question of law, not a question of fact. When facts are clear and parties are aware of the subject matter, a court visit to the locus in quo is not necessary. The grounds advanced must sufficiently constitute a question of law to be certified for purposes of appeal.
Precedent Name
William Mukasa Vs Uganda
Cited Statute
- The Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979
- The Court of Appeal Rules, Act, No 15 of 1979
Judge Name
G. K. Rwakibarila
Passage Text
- It follows that what were resolved in the four grounds in this application suffice to show how applicants have failed to justify any ground on a point of law for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. This application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is therefore dismissed with costs.
- The first and third grounds which were advanced on behalf of applicants are therefore not sufficient to constitute a question of law to be certified for purposes of appeal to the Court of Appeal. Both grounds one and three are in fact collateral to facts which were satisfactorily resolved by the lower courts where applicants lost continuously miserably.