Wakilii

David Lubega and Vertical Wireless Consultants Limited v Larry Heuchert [2026] UGHC 587

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of High Court ruling in Civil Revision No. 0003 of 2025, which had set aside a Magistrate's Court order
Decision
Application for review dismissed; earlier revision ruling remains in force

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 an application for review of its earlier revision ruling. The Court held that the grounds advanced—absence of lower court record, lack of locus standi, wrongful substitution of parties, reliance on new evidence, and excess of jurisdiction—did not constitute errors apparent on the face of the record but were substantive legal determinations properly challengeable on appeal, not review. Review jurisdiction does not permit rehearing or reassessment of judicial reasoning. The Court upheld the preliminary objection in part, striking out argumentative and hearsay paragraphs from the respondent's affidavit.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; earlier revision ruling remains in force

Facts

The applicants filed a miscellaneous cause at the Magistrates' Court seeking access to company funds held in Centenary Bank accounts. The trial Magistrate ordered the bank to allow access to the funds. The respondent, a majority shareholder, filed a civil revision challenging the Magistrate's ruling, alleging lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and procedural irregularities. The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the Magistrate's ruling, ordered restoration of the accounts with different signatories, and directed the first applicant to refund UGX 5,830,000 and UGX 350,000,000 withdrawn from the accounts. Dissatisfied, the applicants filed the present application for review, alleging errors apparent on the face of the record in the revision proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in reply was defective for being sworn by a non-party without written authority and containing argumentative and hearsay evidence.
  2. Whether the Court in Civil Revision No. 0003 of 2025 committed errors apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
  3. Whether the Court proceeded without the lower court record.
  4. Whether the revision was filed by a person without locus standi.
  5. Whether the Court illegally substituted parties.
  6. Whether the Court relied on evidence not forming part of the subordinate court record.
  7. Whether the Court exercised jurisdiction beyond the limits of revision.
  8. Whether sufficient cause existed to warrant review of the revision ruling.

Orders

  • The Application for review of the orders issued in Miscellaneous Civil Revision No. 0003 of 2025 is dismissed.
  • The orders of this Court delivered in Miscellaneous Civil Revision No. 0003 of 2025 shall remain in force.
  • The prayer seeking reinstatement of the Trial Magistrate's orders in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0114 of 2024 is declined.
  • Costs of this Application are awarded to the Respondent.
  • Paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 of the affidavit in reply are struck out for being argumentative or containing legal submissions.
  • Paragraph 9 of the affidavit in reply is struck out for being inadmissible hearsay.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Competency — Affidavit Sworn by Advocate with Personal Conduct of Matter
An affidavit sworn by an advocate who had personal conduct of earlier proceedings from which the present application arises is not fatally defective on account of being sworn by a non-party, provided the advocate expressly discloses their connection to and knowledge of the subject matter and the affidavit is based on personal knowledge or belief.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Argumentative Content — Striking Out
An affidavit must be confined to facts and not contain legal arguments, opinions, or submissions suitable only for counsel's oral or written address. Paragraphs containing extensive legal justification, legal conclusions, or arguments violate the fundamental rule that affidavits must state facts and should be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Hearsay Evidence — Disclosure of Source
Under Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, affidavits must be confined to facts within the deponent's personal knowledge except on interlocutory applications where statements of belief may be admitted provided the grounds thereof are stated. A deponent who swears to contentious facts occurring years prior to their involvement must disclose the source of information and state the grounds of belief, failing which the evidence constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
Civil Procedure — Review — Grounds — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error apparent on the face of the record must be an evident error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. It must be an error so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on record. The error may be one of fact or law, but it must be self-evident from the ruling itself without requiring examination of proceedings, arguments, or judicial discretion exercised.
Civil Procedure — Review — Distinction from Appeal — Scope of Review Jurisdiction
Review is not an appeal. A court cannot sit on appeal over its own judgment under the guise of review. Review jurisdiction does not permit reopening of evidence, reassessment of judicial reasoning, or reconsideration of substantive legal determinations. Complaints that question how the court exercised judicial discretion, evaluated evidence, or interpreted law are properly challengeable on appeal but not on review.
Civil Procedure — Review — Sufficient Cause — Limits
The ground of 'sufficient cause' under Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be analogous to the other statutory grounds for review and cannot be used to circumvent the strict limits of review jurisdiction. Hardship, inconvenience, or perceived injustice, without more, does not constitute a statutory ground for review. Review is not an equitable reconsideration of consequences but a correction of manifest error.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • Erongot v Anguria (Miscellaneous Application No. 173 of 2022)
  • Bankone Ltd v Simbamanyo Estates (Miscellaneous Application No. 645 of 2020)
  • Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Appeal No. 7 of 2018)
  • FX Mubuuke v UEB Bank (HCMA No. 98 of 2005)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze [2005] UGSC 1

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

David Lubega and Vertical Wireless Consultants Limited v Larry Heuchert 2026 UGHC 587 (15 May 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.