Wakilii

Cardenas v Cardenas (HCT-04-CV-MA-0112-2017)

High Court · [2017] UGHCFD 11 · 2017 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside and review Deputy Registrar's order varying interim custody arising from pending divorce proceedings
Decision
Deputy Registrar's variation order set aside; original interim custody order reinstated

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 a Deputy Registrar has no power to review or vary her own decision. The powers of Registrars under Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Direction No. 1 of 2002 do not include the power to review judgments or orders. Any decision made without jurisdiction is a nullity. The Deputy Registrar's order of 24 March 2017 varying her earlier custody order was therefore set aside as a nullity and the original order of 24 May 2016 reinstated.

Outcome

Deputy Registrar's variation order set aside; original interim custody order reinstated

Facts

In divorce proceedings pending before the High Court, the Deputy Registrar granted interim custody of a minor child to the applicant (father) on 29 May 2016. On 14 March 2017, on application by the respondent (mother), the Deputy Registrar reviewed and reversed her own earlier order, granting custody to the respondent instead. The applicant then brought this application to set aside the Deputy Registrar's variation order on the ground that a Registrar lacks jurisdiction to review or vary her own decision. The respondent and her counsel, though served, did not attend the hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether a Deputy Registrar has jurisdiction to review or vary her own earlier order.
  2. Whether the Deputy Registrar's order of 24 March 2017 varying her earlier order of 24 May 2016 was a nullity.

Orders

  • The Deputy Registrar's order of review dated 24 March 2017 is set aside as a nullity.
  • The Deputy Registrar's order of 24 May 2016 is reinstated.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Powers of Registrars — Review Jurisdiction
A Registrar or Deputy Registrar has no power to review or vary his or her own decision. The powers of Registrars are set out in Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules and enhanced by Practice Direction No. 1 of 2002, which do not include the power to review judgments or orders.
Civil Procedure — Nullity — Decisions Made Without Jurisdiction
Any decision made by a court or judicial officer without jurisdiction is a nullity and must be set aside. A Registrar's purported review of his or her own order is made without jurisdiction and is therefore void ab initio.
Civil Procedure — Powers of Registrars — Right of Appeal
Under Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, any person aggrieved by an order of a Registrar may appeal from that order to the High Court. The proper recourse against a Registrar's decision is by way of appeal, not by application to the Registrar for review.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.50 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.50 r.8
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.46

Cases cited (1)

  • Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Cardenas v Cardenas (HCT-04-CV-MA-0112-2017) [2017] UGHCFD 11 (2 May 2017)
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.