Wakilii

Evergreen Fields Uganda Limited v Tungwako & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2019)

High Court · [2020] UGHCLD 3 · 2020 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of High Court order arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2014
Decision
Order cancelling applicant's lease set aside; re-entry noting reversed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 court granted the application for review. The lease agreement between the parties expressly excluded the lessor's right to re-enter under Clause 3, making the noting of re-entry an error of law apparent on the face of the record. New evidence from CMI, Interpol, and Immigration authorities established that the applicant's directors were never arrested or deported for growing marijuana, contrary to the evidence that led to the lease cancellation. The applicant was denied a fair hearing as it was not made a party to the original application despite being the lessee whose interest was directly affected.

Outcome

Order cancelling applicant's lease set aside; re-entry noting reversed

Facts

The applicant held a lease (LRV 3063 Folio 3) over land in Busiro Block 405 Plot 100, granted by Fred Sempira in May 2002. The lease agreement contained Clause 3, which expressly excluded the lessor's power to re-enter. The 1st respondent acquired the reversionary interest from Sempira in 2010 while the lease was subsisting. In 2012, the 1st respondent re-entered and filed notice with the land registry. When the Commissioner for Land Registration rejected the re-entry, the 1st respondent filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2014 seeking an order to note the re-entry and cancel the lease. The 1st respondent's application was premised on allegations that the applicant was growing marijuana for narcotics production and its directors had been deported by the Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence (CMI). The applicant was not made a party to that application. The court granted the orders, cancelling the lease and noting re-entry. The applicant later obtained evidence from CMI, Interpol, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs confirming that its directors had never been arrested or deported.

Issues

  1. Whether the application meets the criteria for review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the noting of re-entry when the lease agreement expressly excluded the lessor's power to re-enter.
  3. Whether new and important evidence had been discovered which, had it been presented at the hearing of Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2014, would have altered the court's decision.

Orders

  • The decision of this court in Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2014 is hereby reviewed and set aside owing to discovery of new and important evidence and an apparent error on the face of the record.
  • The order to note the Applicant's re-entry upon the land comprised in Busiro Block 405 Plot 100 and cancellation of the lease title for the leasehold comprised in LRV 3063 Folio 3 at Sisa is hereby set aside.
  • The Applicant is awarded costs for this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Land Law — Leases — Implied Terms — Exclusion by Express Covenant
Where parties to a lease agreement have expressly excluded the lessor's statutory right to re-enter under Section 103(b) of the Registration of Titles Act, the implied covenant to re-enter does not operate. An implied covenant is a latent provision that comes into play only when the lease is silent on the particular situation the implied covenant is intended to cover.
Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error apparent on the face of the record refers to an evident error which does not require extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. It is an error so manifest and clear that no court would permit it to remain on the record. Where a court notes a lessor's re-entry on the register despite an express covenant in the lease forbidding re-entry, this constitutes an error of law apparent on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Review — Discovery of New and Important Evidence
When a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new evidence, the evidence must be relevant and of such a character that if it had been given at trial it might possibly have altered the judgment. New evidence establishing that a lessee's directors were never arrested or deported, contrary to the allegations that led to lease cancellation, is relevant new evidence warranting review.
Civil Procedure — Review — Sufficient Reason — Denial of Fair Hearing
The denial of a fair hearing constitutes sufficient reason to warrant a review of a court's decision. Where a party's property interest is the subject matter of an application but that party is not made a party to the proceedings and is not afforded a hearing, this constitutes a sufficient reason for review as it contravenes the principle of natural justice that no party should be condemned unheard.
Civil Procedure — Review — Grounds — False Assumptions
Where evidence produced on review shows that the charge or allegation on which the original order was based was founded on an assumption which in fact did not exist, this constitutes sufficient reason for the court to review and set aside its earlier orders.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • Re-Nakivubo Chemist (U) Ltd (1979) HCB 12
  • Al-Shafi Investment Group LLC v Ahmed Darwish Dapher & Darwish Al Marar (Miscellaneous Application No. 901 of 2017)
  • Levi Outa v Uganda Transport Company [1995] HCB 340
  • Ghansham v Lal Singh (1887) ILR 9 All 61

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Evergreen_Fields_Uganda_Limited_v_Tungwako_&_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._3_of_2019)_[2020]_UGHCLD_3_(13_March_2020)
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.