Wakilii

DAJ Communications Limited v Kihika (Miscellaneous Application 18 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 136 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment arising from Civil Suit No. 009 of 2011
Decision
Application struck out for lack of jurisdiction

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 struck out an application for review of judgment on grounds of incompetence. Where a party has filed a notice of appeal against a judgment, that party loses locus standi to apply for review of the same judgment under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The right to seek review only exists where no appeal has been preferred. The applicant had lodged a notice of appeal on 30 June 2022 against the judgment delivered on 16 June 2022, and the appeal remained pending and unresolved at the time of filing the review application. The court therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Outcome

Application struck out for lack of jurisdiction

Facts

DAJ Communications Limited was the unsuccessful defendant in Civil Suit No. 009 of 2011, decided on 16 June 2022 in favour of David Kihika. The court ordered the applicant to pay Kihika special damages of UGX 20,100,000, general damages of UGX 1,000,000, interest at 17% and costs. On 30 June 2022, DAJ Communications lodged a notice of appeal against that judgment. The notice was endorsed and served on 7 July 2022. The appeal remained pending. On a date not specified but in 2023, DAJ Communications filed Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2023 seeking review of the same judgment, alleging discovery of new evidence including MTN invoices, unavailability of witnesses during trial, and failure of counsel to call certain witnesses. The applicant also sought a stay of execution. Kihika opposed the application on grounds that once a party has appealed, the remedy of review is no longer available and the application constitutes forum shopping and abuse of process.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for review is incompetent.
  2. Whether the application satisfies the grounds for review.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application struck out as incompetent.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Locus Standi — Effect of Pending Appeal
A party who has filed a notice of appeal against a judgment loses the right to apply for review of the same judgment. The right to seek review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules only exists where no appeal has been preferred by the party seeking review.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Jurisdiction — Effect of Filing Appeal After Review Application
Where an application for review is filed before an appeal is lodged, the review application remains competent and the court retains jurisdiction to hear it notwithstanding the subsequent filing of an appeal. The filing of the appeal after the review application does not render the review application incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Non-Appellant Party — Right to Review During Pending Appeal
Where an appeal is pending, a person aggrieved by the judgment who is not a party to the appeal retains the right to apply for review in respect of matters not covered by the appeal, provided the ground of review is not common to the appellant's grounds of appeal.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Rationale — Avoidance of Conflicting Decisions
The restriction on filing a review application after lodging an appeal is intended to avoid situations where the trial court and the appellate court may issue contradictory decisions. Once an appeal is filed, all matters connected with the dispute are transferred to and placed under the control of the appellate court.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

  • Muhamad Katamba and Another v Hajji Kiramba Kasallita and Others (HCMA No. 1165 of 2016)
  • Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd [1979] HCB 12
  • Muhammed Bukenya Allibai v W.E Bukenya and Another (SCCA No. 56 of 1996)
  • Kisya Investment Ltd v Attorney General (CA No. 31 of 1995)
  • Behari Lal and Another v M.M. Gobardhan Lal and Others AIR 1948 All 353
  • Hoima District NGO Forum and 6 Others v Murungi Catherine and 5 Others (HCMA No. 13 of 2013)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

DAJ Communications Limited v Kihika (Miscellaneous Application 18 of 2023) [2023] UGHC 136 (30 November 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.