Wakilii

Herbert Lubega Wasswa v Oketcha Micheal Baranyanga (Miscellaneous Application 1547 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 515 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of Deputy Registrar's ruling and for leave to appeal out of time
Decision
Application for review and leave to appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 court dismissed the application for review and leave to appeal out of time. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new evidence warranting review under Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant's claim of unawareness of the Deputy Registrar's ruling was untenable given that the ruling was delivered via ECCMIS with electronic notification to counsel. The intended appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success and the pursuit of both review and leave to appeal constituted abuse of process.

Outcome

Application for review and leave to appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant sought to review and set aside a ruling by Deputy Registrar Jessica Chemeri dated 17 June 2025 in EMA No. 191 of 2024, and to obtain leave to appeal that ruling out of time. The applicant claimed he was unaware of the ruling until 25 June 2025 when it was served on his lawyers by the respondent. He alleged the Deputy Registrar disregarded illegalities, failed to appreciate that EMA No. 270 of 2022 remained unresolved, ordered payment contrary to the decree, and issued a premature warrant of eviction. The respondent opposed the application, asserting that the ruling was delivered via ECCMIS with notification to counsel, that no illegality existed, that EMA No. 270 of 2022 had been concluded, and that the execution application correctly sought eviction without requiring payment as decretal sums had been settled.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for review and setting aside the ruling and orders issued vide EMA No. 191 of 2024 by Her Worship Jessica Chemeri dated 17th June 2025?
  2. Whether there are sufficient grounds to grant the applicant leave to appeal the said ruling out of time?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
A review application under Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires demonstration of an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence, or any other sufficient reason analogous to those specified. An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and immediately apparent upon perusal of the record, not requiring elaborate argumentation or extended reasoning to establish.
Civil Procedure — Review — Scope and Limitations — Not an Appeal in Disguise
A review application serves a limited purpose and must not be allowed to function as an appeal in disguise. Review may be granted to correct an apparent error or omission of the court but may not be exercised on the basis that the decision was erroneous on its merits, which is the domain of an appellate court. The court is not entitled to reappraise evidence and arrive at a different conclusion in a review.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Extension of Time
An appeal from an order of a registrar under Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not require leave. An application for extension of time to file an appeal should generally be granted unless the applicant is guilty of unexplained and inordinate delay, has not presented a reasonable explanation for failure to file within the prescribed time, the extension will be prejudicial to the respondent, or the intended appeal is not an arguable appeal.
Civil Procedure — Electronic Filing — ECCMIS — Deemed Consent to Electronic Service
Under rule 17 of the Judicature (Electronic Filing, Service and Virtual Proceedings) Rules, when a registered user files a case or response or enters appearance through ECCMIS, they are deemed to have consented to receive all documents electronically. Compliance with the digitalized system is mandatory for parties engaging with the commercial court. A party who has interacted with proceedings by filing and receiving documents on ECCMIS cannot feign ignorance of electronic service of court documents.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (7)

  • Nabbosa Aisha & another v Mwebere Emanuel (High Court Civil Application No. 13 of 2015)
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Kago (2 EA 173)
  • Attorney General and another v James Mark Kamoga and another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Hamam Singh Bhogal T/a Hamam Singh & Co v Jadva Karsan (1953) 20 EACA 17
  • Baku Raphael v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Attorney General v Shah (No. 4 EA 50)
  • Muzamil Ayile v Rose Tarapke & 6 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 0024 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Herbert Lubega Wasswa v Oketcha Micheal Baranyanga (Miscellaneous Application 1547 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 515 (24 September 2025)
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.