Wakilii

Gertrude Kaveebukasa and Others v Ombogo Okoth (Miscellaneous Application 1078 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 477 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment in Civil Suit No. 759 of 2017, heard exparte due to respondent's unknown whereabouts
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

The High Court dismissed an application for review of a judgment in Civil Suit No. 759 of 2017. The applicants failed to adduce new and important evidence that was unavailable at trial. Area schedules and mutation forms showing land subdivision did not constitute new evidence warranting review, as they did not demonstrate how the suit land was allegedly transferred to the respondent without authorization.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed

Facts

In 2010, the late Namasole Manjeri Lunkuse allegedly hired the respondent, purportedly a registered surveyor, to subdivide land on Kyadondo Block 206 plot 382 into plots 408, 409, and 410. The applicants alleged that during the subdivision process, the respondent illegally allocated plot 409 to himself. Civil Suit No. 759 of 2017 was dismissed on 13 December 2021 without an order as to costs, having proceeded exparte against the respondent. The applicants, as administrators of the late Namasole's estate, sought review of that judgment, claiming discovery of new evidence in the form of mutation forms and area schedules. The respondent's whereabouts were unknown and he could not be served.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants are persons aggrieved by the decision in Civil Suit No. 759 of 2017 with standing to apply for review.
  2. Whether there is new and important evidence discovered after trial that could not have been produced at the time judgment was passed.
  3. Whether the application meets the criteria for review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. 1078 of 2022 is dismissed for lack of merit.
  • No order as to costs since the application proceeded exparte against the respondent who did not file an affidavit in reply.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — New and Important Evidence — Standard Required
For an application for review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act to succeed on the ground of discovery of new and important evidence, the applicant must adduce evidence that was not available at the time of trial and which has been discovered after trial, and such evidence must be material to the determination of the case.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Insufficiency of Evidence — Area Schedules and Mutation Forms
Area schedules and mutation forms showing land subdivision, without evidence of the instrument of transfer or other documentation demonstrating how land was allegedly transferred without authorization, do not constitute new and important evidence warranting review of a judgment.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Person Aggrieved — Legal Grievance Required
A person considers himself aggrieved for purposes of applying for review if he has suffered a legal grievance, meaning the judgment was given against him or affects his legal interests.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (1)

  • Mohamed Alibhai v Bukenya and Custodian Board (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gertrude_Kaveebukasa_and_Others_v_Ombogo_Okoth_(Miscellaneous_Application_1078_of_2022)_[2023]_UGHCLD_477_(25_April_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.