Wakilii

Butia v Dratele & Another (Miscellaneous Application 37 of 2019)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 973 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside boundary opening order arising from Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2008
Decision
Previous boundary opening order set aside; fresh boundary opening exercise ordered with participation of both parties through independent surveyors

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

Held that where a boundary opening was conducted without notice to one party and their lawyers, the order must be set aside. Natural justice requires that both parties participate in the execution of court orders. The court ordered that each party appoint an independent surveyor to open the boundary in accordance with the original judgment directions, with both surveyors to file a joint report.

Outcome

Previous boundary opening order set aside; fresh boundary opening exercise ordered with participation of both parties through independent surveyors

Facts

The applicant appealed a boundary dispute to the High Court in Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2008. The court set aside the trial magistrate's order for a new boundary and fixed the boundary established by the sub-county chief in 1974 as demonstrated by DW4 at locus in quo marked by Woro trees. A bailiff opened the boundary on 14 September 2017 in the presence of all parties and filed a report. The respondents allegedly removed the boundary markers and complained about the process. The Registrar ordered another boundary opening scheduled for 30 September 2017, which was carried out without notifying the applicant or his lawyers. The applicant applied to set aside this order.

Issues

  1. Whether the court can set aside orders for boundary opening and issue fresh instructions for opening of the boundary.

Orders

  • The order issued by the Registrar instructing a new boundary opening on 30 September 2017 is set aside.
  • Each party shall appoint an independent surveyor of their own choice at their own costs to open the boundary in accordance with the directions and orders of court in Civil Suit 0012 of 2008.
  • Both surveyors shall file a joint report in court.
  • The exercise shall be conducted by both parties or their representatives in the presence of a Police Officer in charge of a station and L.C. 1 chairperson where the land is situated.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs in respect to the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Execution of Orders — Boundary Opening — Notice to Parties
Where a court order for boundary opening is executed without notice to one of the parties or their legal representatives, such execution violates principles of natural justice and the order must be set aside.
Access to Justice — Constitutional Rights — Courts' Duty
A citizen whose constitutional rights are allegedly being trampled upon must not be turned away; once the complaint is arguable, a way must be found to accommodate the litigant.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (1)

  • Attorney General v Ali and Others (1989) LRC 474

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Butia v Dratele & Another (Miscellaneous Application 37 of 2019) [2024] UGHC 973 (3 October 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.