Wakilii

Administrator General v Kiryowa and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1262 of 2019)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 225 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment and decree arising from HCCS No. 2600 of 2016
Decision
Application for review dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and want of locus standi

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 dismissed an application by Muyanja Sam, acting as attorney for the Administrator General, seeking review of a judgment that dismissed a land suit and awarded costs personally against Muyanja Sam. The court held that the application was misconceived on multiple grounds: the complaint about costs allocation fell under the purview of an appeal rather than review; the Administrator General had renounced letters of administration before filing the review application and thus lacked locus standi; and the application brought in the name of the Administrator General was in reality a dispute between Muyanja Sam and the Administrator General, making it untenable against the respondents.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and want of locus standi

Facts

The Administrator General held letters of administration to the estate of the late Enosi Semanda granted in 1991. In 2014, the Administrator General executed a Power of Attorney appointing Muyanja Sam as his attorney to prosecute land matters concerning the estate. In 2015, Muyanja Sam filed a suit (HCCS No. 2600 of 2016) on behalf of the Administrator General against the defendants for trespass on estate land. When the suit came for hearing in May 2017, the Administrator General and Muyanja Sam were absent. The defendants submitted that there was no suit before court as the Administrator General had renounced the letters of administration. The trial judge observed that the Administrator General had confirmed renunciation by letter, had distributed the estate among beneficiaries, and filed an inventory. The judge dismissed the suit with costs payable personally by Muyanja Sam on the basis that the estate no longer existed to be administered. Muyanja Sam then filed this application for review, challenging the costs order and claiming the Administrator General caused the dismissal without his knowledge. The Administrator General filed a disclaimer stating he had renounced administration in March 2017 and never authorized Muyanja Sam to bring the review application.

Issues

  1. Whether sufficient cause has been shown for the grant of an order for review of the impugned decision.

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed with costs to the 1st to 5th Respondents against Mr. Muyanja Sam personally.
  • Judgment delivered via email to the parties and uploaded on the Judiciary ECCMIS Portal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Grounds for Review — Three Circumstances
An application for review can be allowed only in three circumstances: upon discovery of new and important matters or evidence; on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or for any other sufficient reasons, where 'sufficient' means sufficiently analogous to the first two grounds.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Distinction from Appeal — Challenge to Exercise of Judicial Discretion
A complaint challenging the basis upon which a judge exercised discretion in awarding costs does not fall under the purview of an application for review but rather falls under the purview of an appeal. Such matters can only be entertained in an appeal to the Court of Appeal and not by way of review.
Civil Procedure — Locus Standi — Administrator General Who Has Renounced Letters of Administration
An Administrator General who has renounced letters of administration to an estate, and by implication his attorney, have no locus standi to file an application in the name of the Administrator General in respect of matters concerning that estate.
Civil Procedure — Misconceived Applications — Attorney Bringing Claim Against Principal in Principal's Name
Where an attorney's complaint is essentially against the principal who allegedly caused the dismissal of a suit, such complaint cannot be brought in the name of and on behalf of the principal, let alone against third-party respondents. Such an application is legally untenable and misconceived.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (2)

  • Tanitalia Ltd v Mawa Handels Anstalt [1957] EA 215
  • DAPCB v Waris Ali Fadhul and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 716 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Administrator_General_v_Kiryowa_and_5_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_1262_of_2019)_[2023]_UGHCLD_225_(31_July_2023)
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.