Wakilii

Imaging The World Africa (ITWA) Ltd and Another v Juliet Nagawa Luggya and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 659 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 100 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of ruling and orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 1112 of 2023 arising from Civil Suit No. 336 of 2023
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

Held that an application for review filed after an appeal has been preferred is incompetent under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant must elect either to file an appeal or an application for review, not both. The appeal should be withdrawn before filing the review application. Further, the application was brought inordinately late, more than one year after the decision, without sufficient explanation. On the merits, the inclusion of an arbitration clause does not oust the jurisdiction of courts, and the non-referral to arbitration does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed

Facts

The applicants brought an application for review of a ruling and orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 1112 of 2023 arising from Civil Suit No. 336 of 2023. The applicants sought review on grounds that the court erred in hearing the suit despite an arbitration clause in the retainer agreement between the 1st applicant and the respondent, and that the 2nd applicant was wrongfully sued in her personal capacity when she was not a party to the retainer agreement. The respondent opposed the application, contending it was an abuse of process because the applicants had already filed an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 950 of 2024) against the same decision in September 2024. The applicants claimed the appeal had been withdrawn. The ruling under review was delivered on 30 August 2024, and the review application was filed on 20 August 2025, more than one year later.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for review is competent where an appeal has been filed and subsequently withdrawn.
  2. Whether the application for review was brought within reasonable time.
  3. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the court's failure to refer the dispute to arbitration despite an arbitration clause in the retainer agreement.
  4. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in allowing the 2nd applicant to be sued when she was not a party to the retainer agreement.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Competence of Application — Effect of Pending or Preferred Appeal
An application for review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules is incompetent where an appeal has been preferred before the review application is filed. The provisions permit review only where no appeal has been preferred. A litigant must elect either to file an appeal or an application for review, not both. The appeal must be withdrawn before a review application can be filed for the court to exercise jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure — Review — Timing and Delay — Requirement of Promptness
Although there is no prescribed time limit for filing an application for review, such an application must be brought promptly or within reasonable time. A delay of one year between the decision and the filing of the review application is unreasonable and constitutes laches. The applicant has a duty to explain with particular details any delay, and the discovery that former counsel failed to raise an issue is not sufficient reason for delay.
Arbitration & ADR — Arbitration Clause — Effect on Court Jurisdiction — Not an Ouster of Jurisdiction
The inclusion of an arbitration clause in an agreement does not oust the jurisdiction of courts. A court's failure to refer a matter to arbitration where an arbitration clause exists does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. The court retains jurisdiction to handle the matter irrespective of an arbitration clause.
Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition and Scope
An error apparent on the face of the record must be manifest and self-evident, not one that requires elaborate argument to uncover. Re-appreciation of evidence or repetition of arguments on merits is impermissible in review. A review lies only for a patent error which materially undermines the order's soundness or causes a miscarriage of justice.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (9)

  • The Omukama of Tooro v Kagoro (HCT-01-LD-CR-006-2017)
  • Uganda Muslim Supreme Council v Babirye Yudaya and 2 Others (HCT-CV-0008 of 2023)
  • Re: Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd 1979 HCB 12
  • Nsimbe and Others v Caltex (U) Ltd and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 144 of 2013)
  • Henry Wambuga v Ranchhodbhai Shivabhai Patel and Another (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 42 of 2021)
  • Muyodi v Industrial & Commercial Development Corporation and Anor [2006] 1 EA 243
  • Uganda Muslim Supreme Council v Babirye Yudaya and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 0008 of 2023)
  • M/A Silvery Dragon Group Technology and Trading Group v Mukasa and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Civil Application 1018 of 2020) [2021] UG Comm C 149
  • Bemba Ruth and another v. Departed Asians Property Custodian Board [1988-90] HCB 139

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Imaging The World Africa (ITWA) Ltd and Another v Juliet Nagawa Luggya and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 659 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 100 (31 March 2026)
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.