Wakilii

David Ochieng Okolong v Dr. Okoth Joshua and Another (Miscellaneous Application No.47 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 154 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of High Court judgment on appeal, arising from execution of judgment affecting applicant's registered land
Decision
Application granted; judgment reviewed to exclude applicant's registered land from suit land boundaries

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 has jurisdiction to review its own appellate decisions under the Civil Procedure Act and Rules. An objector proceeding is not the proper remedy where execution has been completed by delivery of property rather than attachment. A court's failure to describe the boundaries of suit land in its judgment, despite available evidence, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review. The judgment was reviewed to exclude the applicant's registered land from the suit land boundaries.

Outcome

Application granted; judgment reviewed to exclude applicant's registered land from suit land boundaries

Facts

The 1st and 2nd respondents were parties to a land dispute in Civil Suit No.0084 of 2012 concerning unregistered land at Kasipodo B Zone, Tororo District. The applicant testified as a witness for the 2nd respondent, stating he owned neighbouring land which had been surveyed. The trial court found for the 1st respondent, and the 2nd respondent's appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 11th March 2022. During execution of the judgment, the 1st respondent allegedly planted boundary marks on approximately 50 acres including part of the applicant's registered land (FRV FOR 69, Folio 25, Plot 1769). The applicant, who was not a party to the original suit or appeal, applied for review claiming the judgment affected his legal rights in his registered land. The 1st respondent admitted the applicant's land was surveyed and neighbouring but alleged the applicant resurveyed in 2014 and 2022 during the pendency of proceedings, encroaching onto the suit land. The court found no proof of this allegation. Neither the trial court nor the appellate court described the boundaries of the suit land in their judgments, despite available evidence including a sketch plan (PEXII2) from earlier litigation.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is properly before court?
  2. Whether this is a proper case for review?

Orders

  • The judgment of the High Court in Civil Appeal No.0083 of 2014 is hereby reviewed.
  • The judgment of His Worship Simon Ocen in Civil Suit No.0084 of 2012 between the respondents is maintained.
  • The suit land is unregistered land situated at Kasipodo B Zone, Kayoro Sub-County, Tororo District, as was claimed and occupied by the 2nd respondent as of 25th November 2013 when the trial court visited the locus in quo and as depicted by PEXII2.
  • The suit land does not include neighbouring land surveyed by the applicant as of 25th November 2013 and part of which is comprised in FRV FOR 69, Folio 25, Plot 1769, Block 5, Kasipodo B, Tororo County, Tororo District.
  • The 1st respondent shall pay costs of the application to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — High Court Jurisdiction — Review of Appellate Decisions
The High Court has jurisdiction to review its own decisions made on appeal under the Civil Procedure Act and Civil Procedure Rules, provided the decision was not made under a special jurisdiction conferred by separate legislation that excludes the application of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules.
Civil Procedure — Execution — Objector Proceedings — Applicability
Order 22 Rule 55 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which provides for objector proceedings before the executing court, applies only where there has been an attachment of property or a threatened attachment. It does not apply where the mode of execution is delivery of property specifically decreed under Order 22 Rule 8(2)(j)(i).
Civil Procedure — Execution — Third Party Rights — Non-Party to Suit
Section 34(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides that questions relating to execution shall be determined by the executing court, applies only to parties to the suit or their representatives. A person who was neither a party to the suit nor a representative of any party cannot invoke this provision and must seek alternative remedies such as review.
Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition and Scope
An error apparent on the face of the record must be obvious and self-evident, not requiring extraneous evidence or any long-drawn process of reasoning. It must be an error of inadvertence, not a conclusion arrived at after conscious reasoning and appreciation of evidence. A court's failure to describe the boundaries of suit land in its judgment, despite available evidence on record, constitutes such an error.
Civil Procedure — Execution — Scope of Execution — Property Not Subject to Decree
Execution cannot issue against property other than that specified in the judgment being enforced. Where a party plants boundary marks on registered land belonging to a third party pursuant to execution of a judgment concerning unregistered land, such action does not constitute effective delivery of property under Order 22 Rule 8(2)(j)(i) as the third party retains legal ownership and possession.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (10)

  • John Matovu Mulindwa and Others v Naiga Rosemary and Others (HCMA No. 95 of 2024)
  • Erimiya Serunkuma v Elizabeth Nandyose [1959] EA 127
  • Mohammed Alibhai v Bukenya Mukasa and Another (SCCA No. 56 of 1996)
  • Consortium of EAA Company Ltd and Another v Quality Inspection Services Inc. Japan and Another (HCMA No. 1048 and 1109 of 2024)
  • Asiimwe Edward v Rev. Canon Kakongoro (HCCA No. 18 of 2003)
  • Dr. Simon Sentumbwe v Nicolas Golooba (HCMA No. 639 of 2019)
  • Dawa Stephen v Kaliisa Julius (HCMA No. 43 of 2022)
  • Serugo Anthony and Others v Atuhaire and Others (HCMA No. 377 of 2023)
  • F.X Mubuuke v Uganda Electricity Board (HCMA No. 98 of 2005)
  • Watwero Enterprises Ltd v Board of Governors Lukome Secondary School and Another (HCMA No. 08 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

David Ochieng Okolong v Dr. Okoth Joshua and Another (Miscellaneous Application No.47 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 154 (30 January 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.