Wakilii

Cengenge v Langoya (Misc Cause No. 2 of 2005)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 37 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside judgment of District Land Tribunal for lack of jurisdiction, arising from Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2005
Decision
Judgment of District Land Tribunal set aside for lack of jurisdiction

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 set aside the judgment of the District Land Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the LCIII Court. Both parties agreed the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. Following Supreme Court precedent, where the fault lies with the court and not the parties, each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Outcome

Judgment of District Land Tribunal set aside for lack of jurisdiction

Facts

The Respondent was successful before the LCIII Court, Kitgum Town Council. The Applicant appealed to the District Land Tribunal of Gulu, which overturned the LCIII Court judgment in Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2005 dated 31 August 2005. The Respondent then sued in the Chief Magistrates Court, which ruled in his favour. The Applicant appealed to the High Court, which decided in his favour. The Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which nullified all proceedings subsequent to the LCIII Court judgment but did not expressly mention the District Land Tribunal judgment. The Applicant then brought this application to set aside the Tribunal's judgment on the ground that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the LCIII Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the District Land Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the LCIII Court judgment.
  2. Whether the judgment of the District Land Tribunal should be set aside.
  3. Who should bear the costs of the application.

Orders

  • The Judgment of Gulu District Land Tribunal given in Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2005 is set aside.
  • Each party bears its own costs of this Application.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction — District Land Tribunal — Appeals from LCIII Courts
A District Land Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a judgment of an LCIII Court.
Costs — Court Error — Allocation Where Neither Party at Fault
Where a fault in proceedings lies squarely with the court and neither party is to blame for the illegality in the court's decision, the proper order is that each party bears its own costs.
Costs — Default Position — Section 27 CPA
The default position under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act is that costs follow the event unless the court for good reason orders otherwise.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Mohammed Mohammed v Roko Construction Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2013)
  • Komakech Geoffrey & M/s Victoria Advocates v Rose Akol Okullo, Electoral Commission and Among Annet Anita (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Cengenge v Langoya (Misc Cause No. 2 of 2005) [2023] UGHCCD 37 (28 February 2023)
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.