B.K Wava Property Consultants Limited v Rwaguma and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1432 of 2019)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The High Court dismissed an application for review of a judgment granting the respondent title by adverse possession. The court held that the application constituted a disguised appeal because the grounds raised were identical to those pending before the Court of Appeal, and therefore did not fall within the statutory provisions permitting review where an appeal on common grounds is already pending.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; applicant may pursue pending appeal in Court of Appeal

Facts

The applicant company claimed to be the registered proprietor of subdivided plots carved from Busiro Block 543 Plot 31, land previously acquired by purchase. The 1st respondent had instituted H.C.C.S No. 508 of 2012 against the 2nd respondent (administrator of the estate that held Plot 31) and obtained judgment declaring her entitled to a certificate of title for the entire Plot 31 based on adverse possession. The 2nd respondent appealed that judgment to the Court of Appeal in October 2015, and the appeal remained pending. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent subdivided Plot 31 and transferred portions to the applicant. The applicant then brought this application seeking to review and set aside the 2015 judgment and decree, arguing it was aggrieved because the judgment affected land it now owned.

Issues

1. Whether the judgment and decree in H.C.C.S No. 508 of 2012 ordering that the first respondent is entitled to a certificate of title for adverse possession should be reviewed and or set aside
2. Whether execution of the judgment and decree in H.C.C.S No. 508 of 2012 should be reviewed and or set aside

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the 1st Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Judicature Act s.33
• Civil Procedure Act s.82
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 46 Rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 46 Rule 2

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Jingo Mukasa v Rwaguma (Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2015)

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