Wakilii

Duncan Kizito Sematimba v The Board of Governors Kings College Buddo (Miscellaneous Application No. 458 of 2025)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 302 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of interlocutory ruling that granted leave to amend written statement of defence
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 for review was dismissed where the applicant sought to challenge an earlier ruling granting leave to amend pleadings. The court held that no error apparent on the face of the record existed. The earlier ruling properly applied the established principles governing amendment of pleadings from Gaso Transport Services. The applicant's disagreement with the court's consideration of those principles is a matter for appeal, not review. Review is not a mechanism for re-argument.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed

Facts

The applicant instituted Civil Suit No. 762 of 2020 against the respondent on 29 September 2020. During scheduling, the respondent sought leave to amend its written statement of defence by way of Miscellaneous Application No. 2677 of 2024. The court granted the application and allowed the amendment as proposed, including permission to file a counterclaim. The applicant then brought this application for review, alleging that the ruling contained errors apparent on the face of the record because it permitted an amendment that fundamentally changed the defence from bonafide and lawful ownership by purchase to adverse possession. The applicant contended that this substituted one defence for another in violation of established principles governing amendment of pleadings.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has demonstrated grounds to warrant the court to review, vary and set aside its ruling in HCMA No. 2677 of 2024

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
For an error to constitute a ground for review, it must be apparent on the face of the record, meaning an evident error which does not require extraneous matter to show its correctness and must be so manifest and clear that no court would permit it to remain on the record.
Civil Procedure — Review — Distinction from Appeal — Proper Scope of Review
Review is not a mechanism to give the court an opportunity to re-exercise its consideration of a matter. Where an applicant seeks to challenge the court's consideration and application of established legal principles, the proper remedy is by way of appeal and not review.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Review of Ruling Granting Leave to Amend
Where a court grants leave to amend pleadings after properly directing itself on the law and evaluating the established tests for amendment in light of the evidence before it, a party's disagreement with that decision does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (3)

  • FX Mubuuke v UEB (HCMA No. 98 of 2005)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (SCCA No. 6 of 2004)
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Obene Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Duncan_Kizito_Sematimba_v_The_Board_of_Governors_Kings_College_Buddo_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._458_of_2025)_[2024]_UGHCLD_302_(11_April_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.