Wakilii

Rutajengwa Elistariko and Another v Sanyu Scovia Gatete (Civil Appeal No. 467 of 2022)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 386 · 2025 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court (Commercial Division) ruling on review which vacated and substituted the trial judge's orders.
Decision
Appeal partly allowed: the Principal Judge's review of the trial judgment was upheld, but his award of UGX 100,000,000 general damages was set aside.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held the Principal Judge correctly exercised review jurisdiction under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The trial judge's conflicting findings — that the appellants were remunerated employees who made no financial contribution, yet had a constructive-trust interest in one property — was a patent error apparent on the face of the record, not a mere erroneous decision requiring appeal; the contested or reasoned nature of the trial did not oust review. Grounds 1-7 failed. However, the Principal Judge erred in awarding UGX 100,000,000 general damages that were neither pleaded, prayed for, nor supported by evidence of loss; a court cannot grant relief not claimed. Ground 8 succeeded and that award was set aside.

Facts

The appellants sued the respondent in Civil Suit No. 511 of 2013, claiming to be her business partners in a shop at Plot 6 Nakivubo Road and entitled to equal shares in several properties and a DFCU bank balance. The trial judge (Justice Senoga Anglin, Rtd) found there was no partnership and that the appellants were remunerated employees who made no financial contribution, yet held they had an interest by constructive trust in one property (FRV 584 Folio 19 Plot 35 Nakivubo Place), maintained caveats over it, granted an injunction, and awarded UGX 1,000,000,000 general damages with interest. The respondent applied to the Principal Judge (Justice Flavian Zeija) for review on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record. The Principal Judge vacated the trial orders, declared the respondent sole owner of all the suit properties, directed removal of the appellants' caveats, issued a permanent injunction, and awarded the respondent UGX 100,000,000 general damages. The appellants appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal was competent where it was filed without first obtaining leave to appeal against a decision made on review.
  2. Whether the grounds of appeal were too general and offended rule 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  3. Whether the Principal Judge properly exercised review jurisdiction in vacating and substituting the trial judge's orders, that is, whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record rather than a mere erroneous decision.
  4. Whether the Principal Judge erred in awarding the respondent general damages that were neither pleaded nor prayed for.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds in part and is dismissed on 7 grounds of appeal (grounds 1-7).
  • Ground 8 succeeds; the award of general damages of UGX 100,000,000 made by the Principal Judge is set aside as unjustified.
  • The respondent is awarded three-quarters (3/4) of the costs of the appeal only.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Error apparent on the face of the record distinguished from an erroneous decision
Review under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules lies only to correct a patent error apparent on the face of the record, not to rehear and correct a merely erroneous decision; an error is apparent where it can be pointed out without elaborate argument and admits of no two opinions.
Civil Procedure — Review — Orders conflicting with the court's own findings of fact
Where a court makes orders that conflict with its own findings of fact, that constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record correctable by review, because such an error is self-evident and is not established through a long process of reasoning.
Civil Procedure — Review — Reasoned judgment or hotly contested trial no bar to review
The power to review is not ousted merely because the judgment under review was arrived at through a process of reasoning or out of a hotly contested trial; where an error apparent on the face of the record exists, the court is clothed with jurisdiction to review.
Land & Property — Constructive Trust — Remunerated employee with no financial contribution
An employee who is duly remunerated for services rendered and who makes no financial contribution acquires no beneficial interest by constructive trust in property acquired by the employer; a constructive trust requires evidence, express or implied, of a common intention that the property be beneficially shared.
Civil Procedure — Reliefs — Relief not pleaded or prayed for
A court cannot grant a party relief that was not claimed in the pleadings, nor grant more than was claimed; general damages that were neither pleaded, prayed for, nor supported by evidence of loss cannot be awarded, and such an award made on review is unjustified.
Damages & Quantum — Appellate interference with general damages
An appellate court may interfere with an award of general damages only where it is shown that the judge acted on a wrong principle of law or that the amount awarded is so high or so low as to amount to an entirely erroneous estimate.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Civil Procedure Act cap 81 s.83
  • Civil Procedure Act s.82(b)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 46
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules SI 13-10 rule 86

Cases cited (18)

  • Independent Medical Unit vs AG of the Republic of Kenya Application No.2 of 2012 arising from Appeal No.1 of 2011
  • Mapalala v British Broadcasting Corporation [2002] 1 EA 132
  • Kamudi v Republic [1973] EA 540
  • Fang Min v Belex Tours and Travel Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2013)
  • Nalongo Burash v Kekitiibwa Magdalena (Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2011)
  • Dr. Sheikh Ahmed Mohamed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (in liquidation) (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2010)
  • Katumba Byaruhanga v Edward Kyewalabye Musoke (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998)
  • Attorney General v Florence Baliraine (Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2003)
  • National Insurance Corporation v Pelican Air Services (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2003)
  • Khan v Khan [2015] EWHC 2625 (Ch)
  • Nyamogo and Nyamogo Advocates v Moses Kipkolum Kogo (Civil Application No. 322 of 2000) [2001] 1 EA 173
  • Muyodi v Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation and Anor [2006] 1 EA 243
  • Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India v Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association [2016] AIR 326 (SC)
  • Attorney General and Anor v James Mark Kamoga and Anor (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2004) [2008] 2 EA 3
  • Said Hemed Said v Emmanuel Karisa Maitha and Anor [2000] 2 EA 505
  • Millicent Asare Boafo v Peter Ababio [2012] 50 GMJ 168 (CA)
  • Emmanuel Ilona v Sunday Idakwo (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt. 830) 53
  • Francis Sembuya v All Port Service Uganda Limited (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1999)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.