Wakilii

Makanga David v Madrine Sanyu (Miscellaneous Application 573 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 584 · 2026 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of High Court ruling delivered on appeal from Assistant Registrar's decision granting temporary injunction
Decision
Application for review dismissed; ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 3072 of 2023 stands

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

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 High Court dismissed an application for review of a ruling that set aside a temporary injunction. The court held that it has jurisdiction to review its own decisions given on appeal under the Civil Procedure Act. However, the application failed because it sought re-evaluation of evidence rather than correction of an error apparent on the record. A review cannot be used as a disguised appeal to retry a case.

Facts

The applicant purchased land in 2019 with an existing access road shared with the respondent's neighbouring plots. The respondent amalgamated her plots and blocked the access road. The applicant obtained a temporary injunction from the Assistant Registrar ordering maintenance of status quo and removal of the blockage. On appeal, a High Court judge set aside the injunction, finding it altered the status quo and predetermined the main suit. The applicant then sought review of that ruling, arguing the judge erred in not considering evidence of the access road's existence. The respondent opposed, contending the application disclosed no grounds for review and that the court lacked jurisdiction to review its own appellate decision.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to warrant the review and setting aside of the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 3072 of 2023
  2. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review its own judgment given on appeal
  3. Whether the application discloses an error apparent on the face of the record

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Jurisdiction of High Court to Review Appellate Decisions
The High Court has jurisdiction to review its own decisions given on appeal brought within the Civil Procedure Act and Civil Procedure Rules, notwithstanding earlier precedent suggesting otherwise based on unique facts.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Pure Points of Law
A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law based solely on legal arguments rather than disputed facts or evidence, and is argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the opposing party are correct.
Civil Procedure — Review — Grounds for Review
For an application for review to succeed, the applicant must prove discovery of new and important evidence not previously available despite due diligence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient reasons analogous to the first two grounds.
Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record Distinguished from Erroneous Decision
An error apparent on the face of the record exists where an error on a substantial point of law stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions. An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or on points where there may be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A mere erroneous decision or wrong view is no ground for review although it may be ground for appeal.
Civil Procedure — Review — Review as Disguised Appeal
A review cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. Review is strictly limited to correcting glaring errors of record or admitting new evidence and cannot be used to retry a case or re-evaluate evidence.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Injunctions — Preservation of Status Quo
A temporary injunction serves solely to preserve the status quo until the main suit is determined. At the interlocutory stage, courts must avoid making findings that effectively resolve the substantive merits of the main dispute.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Judicature Act s.82
  • Judicature Act s.98
  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 46 rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 rule 4
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 2
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)(e)

Cases cited (12)

  • Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd [1979] HCB 12
  • Yusuf v Nokorach [1971] EA 104
  • Kalangwa v Senyama (Miscellaneous Application No. 1622 of 2021)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Tumwebaze (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • Erimiya Serunkuma v Elizabeth Nandyose [1959] EA 127
  • David Ochieng Okolongo v Dr Okoth Joshua & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 47 of 2025)
  • John Matovu Mulindwa & 19 Others v Naiga Rosemary & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 94 of 2024)
  • Consortium of EAA Company Ltd & Anor v Quality Inspection Services Inc Japan & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 1048 & 1109 of 2024)
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Farm Input Care Ltd Centre Ltd v Klein Karoo Seed Marketing (PTY) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 902 of 2018)
  • ELT Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Katende Abdul Nasser [1985] HCB 43
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2006)
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.