Wakilii

Bugembe Town Council v Mirembe Catherine Administrator of Estate of Late Mutesi Olivia (Civil Revision 23 of 2017)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 291 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for revision from Magistrate Grade One decision in Misc. Application No. 54 of 2017
Decision
Application for revision dismissed with costs; trial court orders upheld

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 High Court dismissed the application for revision, holding that the trial magistrate properly exercised jurisdiction under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act to review her own order granting a third party notice. The court found no material irregularity or injustice in the magistrate's determination of the review application or in the award of costs to the successful respondent.

Outcome

Application for revision dismissed with costs; trial court orders upheld

Facts

Speedie Contractors Limited instituted Civil Suit No. 196 of 2013 against Bugembe Town Council. The Town Council filed Misc. Application No. 90 of 2014 for a third party notice against Mirembe Catherine, an employee who had allegedly made a payment to the wrong party. The third party notice was granted. Mirembe Catherine, aggrieved by the order, filed Misc. Application No. 54 of 2017 to review the third party notice. The magistrate granted the review application with costs to Mirembe Catherine. The respondent filed a bill of costs and obtained an order for execution by attachment and sale of immovable property. Bugembe Town Council then filed this revision application, contending that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to determine the review application while the main suit was pending, that the matter was sub judice, and that the costs award was irregular.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate exercised jurisdiction not vested in her when she determined Misc. Application No. 54 of 2017.
  2. Whether the matter was sub judice given that Civil Suit No. 196 of 2013 was still pending.
  3. Whether the trial magistrate irregularly awarded costs to the respondent.

Orders

  • Application for revision dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.
  • Orders of the trial court in Misc. Application No. 54 of 2017 upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Revision — Jurisdiction of High Court — Grounds for Revision
Under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act, the High Court may revise a magistrate's decision where the magistrate exercised jurisdiction not vested in law, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested, or acted illegally or with material irregularity or injustice. The power of revision is supervisory and is exercised to correct errors of jurisdiction or material irregularities, not errors of fact or law after prescribed formalities have been complied with.
Civil Procedure — Review — Jurisdiction to Review Own Orders
Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers a court that passed a decree or made an order to review its own decision, provided no appeal has been preferred. Where a magistrate granted a third party notice, the same magistrate is properly seized of jurisdiction to review that order on application by an aggrieved party.
Civil Procedure — Sub Judice — Application of Doctrine
The doctrine of sub judice applies where two suits are concurrently pending between the same parties on the same subject matter. An application for review arising from an interlocutory application within the same litigation chain is not a fresh suit and does not render the review application sub judice.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of Trial Court
Under Section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, costs shall follow the event unless the court for good reason orders otherwise. An award of costs is discretionary and an appellate or revisional court will not interfere with that discretion unless it is shown that the trial court acted capriciously or upon wrong principles.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (6)

  • Wadri Mathias & 4 Others v Dranilla Angella (Civil Revision No. 007 of 2019)
  • Desai v Warsaut (1967) EA 351
  • Vertical Wireless Consultants Ltd v David Lubega and Centenary Rural Development Bank (Civil Revision No. 003 of 2025)
  • Concern Worldwide v Mukasa Kugonza (Civil Revision No. 1 of 2013)
  • D.L.F Housing and Construction Co. Ltd vs. Santip Singh (1996) 3 SCC 807: AIR (1971) SC 2324
  • Nakana v Ssemakula (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bugembe Town Council v Mirembe Catherine Administrator of Estate of Late Mutesi Olivia (Civil Revision 23 of 2017) [2026] UGHC 291 (27 January 2026)
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.