[2025] UGCA 60

[2025] UGCA 60

The appeal was dismissed because the parties failed to file submissions as directed by the Court of Appeal, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. The Court found that without submissions, it could not properly address the grounds of appeal or the complex issues regarding land owned by traditional...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] UGCA 60
Parties
Appellant: His Highness the Kabaka of Buganda; Respondent: Ssalongo Kibuule Ronald; Respondent: The Commissioner Land Registration
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Appeal 369 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
Kiryabwire, JA, Gashirabake, JA, Asa Mugenyi, JA/ JCC
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Bona Fide Purchaser, Certificate of Title, Traditional Rulers Assets, Failure to Prosecute, Ex Parte Judgment
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Review of Judgment Bona Fide Purchaser Certificate of Title Traditional Rulers Assets Failure to Prosecute Ex Parte Judgment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Highness the Kabaka of Buganda

Appellant

Ssalongo Kibuule Ronald

Respondent

The Commissioner Land Registration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the application for review of judgment and decree in Civil Suit 153 of 2019.
  2. 2 Whether the learned trial Judge misapplied the legal principles governing review of judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the trial Judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence and misinterpreted the Traditional Rulers (Restoration of Assets and Properties) Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the parties failed to file submissions as directed by the Court of Appeal, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. The Court found that without submissions, it could not properly address the grounds of appeal or the complex issues regarding land owned by traditional rulers. The appellant was not a party to the original suit and did not first seek leave to appeal in the High Court, but the Court regularized the appeal under Rule 42. Ultimately, the absence of submissions and further steps by the parties led the Court to conclude that the appeal was no longer necessary and should be dismissed. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is hereby dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs in this appeal.