John Kafeero Sentongo v Peterson Sozi (Civil Application No. O190 of 2021)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal granted the application to correct its earlier judgment under Rule 36 of the Court of Appeal Rules. It held that having declared the applicant the lawful owner of the suit land, the Court had inadvertently omitted to grant vacant possession, which was its manifest intention. The Court accordingly added orders for eviction of the respondent and a permanent injunction. However, it declined to award general damages and interest, holding that quantum requires evidence not available at appellate level and could not be regarded as the correction of an error. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Outcome

Application allowed in part; judgment corrected to include orders for eviction and permanent injunction; claims for general damages and interest declined

Facts

The applicant had succeeded in Civil Appeal No. 173 of 2012, in which the Court of Appeal declared that the suit land comprised in Plot 1011, Kyadondo Block 273 belonged to him and awarded costs of the appeal and lower courts. The applicant subsequently found that, despite the declaration of ownership, he could not gain access to the land because the Court had not made orders for eviction, a permanent injunction, general damages or interest, all of which he had sought in his original plaint in the Chief Magistrates Court of Mengo. He brought this application to recall and correct the judgment, contending the omitted orders were incidental and consequential to the finding of ownership. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that eviction orders were not consequential and that the powers sought were the preserve of a registered proprietor with a subsisting lease.

Issues

1. Whether the Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 173 of 2012 omitted consequential orders that could be corrected under the slip rule.
2. Whether orders for eviction and a permanent injunction were incidental to the declaration of ownership and could be added by way of correction.
3. Whether an award of general damages and interest could be granted as a correction of the judgment.

Orders

• Application allowed under Rule 36 of the Rules of the Court.
• An order for eviction of the respondent and/or his agents from the suit land.
• A permanent injunction to restrain the respondent and/or his agents from entering and/or occupying the suit land.
• Each party to bear its own costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.36(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.36(2)

Cases cited (8)

• Elizabeth Nalumansi Wamala v Jolly Kasande and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 29 of 2017)
• David Muhenda v Humphrey Mirembe (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2012)
• Livingstone Sewangana v Martin Aliker (Miscellaneous Application No. 40 of 1991)
• Nsereko Joseph Kisukye v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2012)
• Orient Bank Ltd v Fredrick Zaabwe and Another (Civil Application No. 17 of 2007)
• Lakhamshi Brothers Ltd v R. Raja and Sons [1966] EA 313
• Fangmin v Dr. Kaijuka Mutabazi Emmanuel (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2009)
• UDB v Oil Seeds (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 15 of 1977)

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.

• Kikonyogo Robert v Kyambogo University (Labour Dispute Reference No. 112 2018; MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 42 OF 2022)

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