Bisegerwa Moses and Others v Ssemakula Moses (Miscellaneous Application 1909 of 2024)

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.

Holding

Application for review of court orders struck out as overtaken by events. The original judge who issued the impugned orders in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 021 of 2023 had already rectified the errors and issued a corrected order, rendering the original orders non-existent. Courts do not decide cases where no live dispute exists between parties or issue orders for academic purposes only.

Outcome

Application struck out as moot following rectification of impugned orders by the original issuing judge

Facts

The applicants, beneficiaries of the estate of the late Erias Bisegerwa, filed Civil Suit No. 1094 of 2022 against the respondent to recover land at Kibuga LRV 4359, Folio 17 Block 7 Plot 130 at Kibuye. They obtained a temporary injunction in Miscellaneous Application No. 2164 of 2022. The respondent appealed vide Miscellaneous Appeal No. 021 of 2023, which was dismissed. The respondent then extracted a court order from the appeal ruling and circulated it to occupants on the suit land, demanding rent through Kadeti Auctioneers and Court Bailiffs. The applicants contended that the extracted orders were incorrect and materially altered the status quo on the suit land. They sought review of three specific orders. Following a complaint to the Principal Judge, the parties appeared before the original trial judge, Hon. Justice Alividza Jane Elizabeth, who established that the orders extracted by the respondent's counsel differed from the orders issued by court. The judge rectified the impugned order and issued a new order in its stead, rescinding the original orders.

Issues

1. Whether the application for review should be determined where the impugned orders have been rectified by the issuing judge.
2. Whether the application has been overtaken by events following administrative rectification of the court order.

Orders

• Miscellaneous Application No. 1909 of 2024 is struck out having been overtaken by events following the rectification of the Court Order in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 021 of 2023.
• Each party shall bear its own costs for this application, as the issue was resolved not on the merits of the review application, but by subsequent administrative action.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Judicature Act s.33
• Civil Procedure Act s.82
• Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.2
• Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3

Cases cited (2)

• Minex Karia v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 208 of 2022)
• Julius Maganda v NRM (H.C.M.C No. 154 of 2010)

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