Wakilii

Dr. Kanyesigye v Batalingaya (Civil Miscellaneous Application 165 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 512 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of decree arising from Civil Suit No. 41 of 2019
Decision
Impugned decree set aside and new decree to be extracted by the court

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

Held that a decree which omits orders contained in the judgment constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record and sufficient reason for review. A notice of appeal does not constitute institution of an appeal under the Court of Appeal Rules; institution requires filing a memorandum of appeal, record of appeal, prescribed fee, and security for costs. The application for review was not barred by the notice of appeal. Court orders must be complied with in full regardless of whether counsel believes them to be in vain. Application allowed, impugned decree set aside, new decree to be extracted in conformity with the judgment.

Outcome

Impugned decree set aside and new decree to be extracted by the court

Facts

The applicant was the successful party in Civil Suit No. 41 of 2019, with judgment delivered on 4 July 2022. The respondent's counsel extracted a decree dated 30 September 2022 which omitted certain orders from the judgment, specifically: that the defendant avail the plaintiff with the certificate of title within one month, and that the wall be demolished with immediate effect and the defendant restrained from blocking the plaintiff's access road. The respondent's counsel prepared and submitted the decree to the Registrar without sharing it with the applicant's counsel for approval. The respondent filed a notice of appeal but did not proceed to institute the appeal by filing a memorandum of appeal or other required documents. The applicant brought this application seeking review and setting aside of the decree and extraction of a new decree conforming to the judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether the decree dated 30 September 2022 as extracted by the respondent's counsel contained errors apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
  2. Whether the application for review could be entertained despite a notice of appeal having been filed by the respondent.
  3. Whether the applicant was an aggrieved party entitled to seek review of the decree.

Orders

  • The decree dated 30 September 2022 extracted by the respondent in H.C.C.S No. 41 of 2019 is hereby set aside.
  • A new decree in conformity with the judgment dated 4 July 2022 will be extracted by this court.
  • The application is allowed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Decrees — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Omission of Orders in Extracted Decree
A decree which omits orders contained in the judgment constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. The decree must agree with the judgment and clearly specify all relief granted or other determination of the suit. Such an omission is an error manifest and clear that no court would permit to remain on the record and provides sufficient reason for review under Civil Procedure Act s.82 and Civil Procedure Rules O.46.
Civil Procedure — Review — Aggrieved Person — Successful Party Prejudiced by Incomplete Decree
A successful party whose entitlement to the fruits of judgment is affected by the omission of orders from an extracted decree is an aggrieved person entitled to seek review. An aggrieved person is one who has suffered a legal grievance, which occurs when the judgment or decree affects his or her interest.
Civil Procedure — Review Applications — Effect of Notice of Appeal — Distinction Between Notice and Institution of Appeal
A notice of appeal does not by itself constitute institution of an appeal. Under Court of Appeal Rules r.83(1), an appeal is instituted by lodging a memorandum of appeal, record of appeal, prescribed fee, and security for costs within sixty days after the notice of appeal. A review application is not barred where only a notice of appeal has been filed but no memorandum of appeal or other required documents have been lodged.
Civil Procedure — Decree Preparation — Obligation to Submit Draft to Opposing Counsel for Approval
Under Civil Procedure Rules O.21 r.7(2), the primary obligation of the successful party is to prepare the decree and submit it for approval to the other party. Upon approval, the draft is submitted to the registrar who, if satisfied that it was drawn in accordance with the judgment, signs and seals the decree. Unilateral preparation and submission of a decree without sharing it with opposing counsel for approval may result in errors and omissions.
Civil Procedure — Compliance with Court Orders — Obligation to Comply Regardless of Counsel's View of Merits
Court orders once issued must be obeyed whether one agrees with them or not. Counsel's belief that court orders are in vain or that another party's interest takes precedence does not justify deliberately omitting parts of court orders when extracting a decree. The whole purpose of litigation as a process of judicial administration is lost if orders issued by court are not complied with in full by those called upon to give due compliance.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (4)

  • Mohamed Alibhai v W E Bukenya Mukasa & Another (Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • F X Mubuke v Uganda Electricity Board (HCMA No. 98 of 2005)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebase (SCCA No. 6 of 2004)
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Another v Edward Musisi (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dr. Kanyesigye v Batalingaya (Civil Miscellaneous Application 165 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 512 (21 March 2024)
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.