Wakilii

Dibya v Sseruwagi & Others (Miscellaneous Application 377 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCFD 184 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to review and set aside a ruling granting a temporary injunction in Miscellaneous Application No. 437 of 2022
Decision
Application for review dismissed

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

An application to review a ruling granting a temporary injunction was dismissed. The court held that the grounds advanced — alleged failure to consider the applicant's affidavit, exclusion of the estate administrator, and subsequent criminal charges — did not constitute mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Where a court errs in evaluation of evidence, the remedy is appeal, not review. Review is limited to correcting manifest errors without elaborate argument and is not intended to re-evaluate or re-hear the case.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed

Facts

The respondents had obtained a temporary injunction in Miscellaneous Application No. 437 of 2022 restraining the applicant and others from evicting sitting tenants or carrying out construction on land comprised in Kyadondo Block 178 Block 6806 at Nakwero Manyangwa, Wakiso District, pending determination of the main suit. The applicant sought review of that ruling, contending the court delivered it in error by failing to consider his affidavit in reply, by excluding the estate administrator from participation, by relying on misrepresented evidence regarding possession, and by its ruling leading to criminal charges being laid against the applicant and the administrator for obtaining money by false pretenses.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to warrant the review and setting aside of the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 437 of 2022

Orders

  • Application to review and set aside the ruling and orders of Her Worship Katushabe Prossy dated 3rd January 2023 dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Grounds for Review — Mistake or Error Apparent on Face of Record
For an error to be a ground for review, it must be one apparent on the face of the record, meaning 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.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Distinction Between Review and Appeal
Where a court errs in evaluation of evidence, the legal remedy is an appeal and not review. Review of court judgments is only meant to rectify manifest errors that may have occurred and is not meant to re-evaluate or re-hear the case.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Locus Standi — Aggrieved Person
An aggrieved person under Section 82(a) of the Civil Procedure Act is a person who has a genuine legal grievance because an order or decision has been made that affects his or her interests in a prejudicial manner. A party cannot seek review on the basis of a legal grievance suffered by another party.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Discovery of New Evidence — Timing
Evidence arising after the ruling sought to be reviewed does not constitute new and important evidence for purposes of review. Such evidence is an effect of the ruling, not new evidence that was unavailable at the time the ruling was made.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Sufficient Reason — Ejusdem Generis
The words 'any other sufficient reason' as a ground for review mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified immediately previously, namely mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important evidence.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (6)

  • FX Mubuuke v Uganda Electricity Board (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • Attorney-General of the Gambia v N'Jie [1961] 2 All ER 504
  • Oneti Vincent v Commissioner Land Registration and 60 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 225 of 2021)
  • Buladina Nankya v Bulasio Konde (1979) HCB 239
  • Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd (1979) HCB 12

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dibya v Sseruwagi & Others (Miscellaneous Application 377 of 2023) [2023] UGHCFD 184 (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.