In a judgment delivered yesterday, the Supreme Court of Uganda in the case of Bujagali Energy Limited v Kafumba (Civil Appeal 18 of 2021) [2025] UGSC 3 (27 February 2025) has ruled on the procedural handling of Miscellaneous Application No. 02/2002, reinforcing the principle that appellate courts cannot substitute their own findings when a case has never been heard on its merits. It also clarified that the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to determine the case on its merits apart from presidential election petitions.
Facts
The case originated from the alleged compulsory acquisition of land for the Bujagali project.
The applicant, Richard Kafumba, filed a case in 2002 for enforcement of fundamental rights but faced legal objections.
The High Court initially ruled in favor of hearing the case, but later, Justice Namundi dismissed it in 2015 for being improperly filed.
Kafumba appealed to the Court of Appeal, which overturned the High Court’s decision in 2021 and ordered a retrial.
Bujagali Energy Ltd appealed the Court of Appeal’s decision, arguing that the case should have been dismissed rather than remitted for retrial.
The Appellant abandoned three of the four grounds of appeal and pursued only one: that the Court of Appeal should have evaluated the evidence and made a final decision instead of sending the case back to the High Court.
Both parties requested the Supreme Court to exercise its powers, evaluate the case, and issue a final ruling to avoid further delay.
Holding
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the trial court never heard Miscellaneous Application No. 02/2002 on its merits.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal, sitting as a first appellate court, could not re-evaluate evidence that was never examined at the trial level.
Under Article 104 of the Constitution and Section 58 of the Presidential Elections Act (No. 17 of 2000), the Supreme Court’s only original jurisdiction pertains to presidential election petitions.
Section 7 of the Judicature Act does not confer original jurisdiction but allows the Court to exercise powers similar to a trial court only when reviewing appellate matters.
The Court of Appeal was correct in not giving an independent decision on the matter, as there was no trial-level decision on the merits for it to review.
A first appellate court is duty-bound to re-appraise evidence only where a trial court has considered it on the merits.
Since Miscellaneous Application No. 02/2002 has never been heard on its merits, the appropriate course of action is for the High Court, as the court of first instance, to hear the matter.
This aligns with the Court of Appeal’s earlier directive, which had ordered a full hearing of the case without delay.
The Supreme Court referenced its previous decision of M/S Fangmin v. Belex Tours & Travels Ltd, SCCA No. 05 of 2013, consolidated with Crane Bank Ltd v. Belex Tours & Travels Ltd, SCCA No. 1 of 2014. Uganda v. Haji Eriasa Namunyu & 5 Others, SCCA No. 49 of 2020 which affirm that courts must allow a full hearing where preliminary objections have been addressed, and sufficient affidavit evidence exists.
Final Decision
📌 Appeal Dismissed
The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s orders, directing that Miscellaneous Application No. 02/2002 be heard on its merits in the High Court.
📌 No Order as to Costs
Given that the Respondent acquiesced to the sole ground of appeal.
⚖️ Implications
This ruling reinforces the principle that appellate courts cannot substitute their own findings when a case has never been heard on its merits. It also clarifies the limits of Supreme Court jurisdiction under the Judicature Act and the Constitution.
🔍 Legal practitioners and litigants should take note of this decision when dealing with cases dismissed on procedural grounds without a substantive hearing.
Read the decision below
.jpg)
Comments