Wakilii

Anyonga v Kibedi & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 171 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 185 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment arising from Civil Appeal No. 028 of 2023
Decision
Application dismissed on preliminary objection for failure to extract a decree or order before seeking review

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

An application for review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be grounded on an extracted decree or order. Where no decree or order has been extracted from the judgment sought to be reviewed, the application is premature and lacks foundation. The court sustained a preliminary objection and dismissed the application for review.

Outcome

Application dismissed on preliminary objection for failure to extract a decree or order before seeking review

Facts

The applicant brought an application seeking review of a judgment delivered on 3 October 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 028 of 2023, which dismissed the respondent's appeal. The applicant sought to have the judgment reviewed to include an order for costs of the lower court and the appeal, arguing the court had inadvertently omitted to pronounce on costs. The respondents opposed the application, raising a preliminary objection that no decree had been extracted from the judgment of 3 October 2023. The respondents contended that under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a review application must be based on a decree or order, and the failure to extract one rendered the application incompetent.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for review is competent in the absence of an extracted decree or order

Orders

  • Preliminary objection sustained.
  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Requirement for Extracted Decree or Order
An application for review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be founded on an extracted decree or order; failure to extract a decree or order before applying for review constitutes a serious irregularity that renders the application premature and lacking in foundation.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objection — Nature and Requirements
A preliminary objection must consist of a point of law that is pleaded or arises by clear implication from the pleadings, and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit; it raises a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct, and cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if judicial discretion is sought.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (2)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Manyangwa Lovincer and Others v Musoke Charles and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 0014 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Anyonga v Kibedi & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 171 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 185 (5 April 2024)
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.