Wakilii

John Matovu Mulindwa & 19 others v Naiga Rosemary, Masengere Stephen & Magandazi Lubega Aloysius (Miscellaneous Application 94 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 40 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of High Court appellate decision arising from Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2010
Decision
Application dismissed as procedurally improper

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 held that it has no power to review its own decision given on appeal. An application for review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules can only be directed to the court of first instance that passed the decree or made the order, not to an appellate court. The application was dismissed as procedurally improper.

Outcome

Application dismissed as procedurally improper

Facts

The 1st and 2nd respondents sued the 3rd respondent at the Chief Magistrates Court of Mengo for recovery of property and an injunction. The trial magistrate ruled in favour of the 3rd respondent. On appeal, the High Court reversed the decision and ruled in favour of the 1st and 2nd respondents. The 3rd respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court decision. The applicants, customary sub-clan heads who were not party to the original proceedings, sought to review the High Court's appellate decision in Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2010, alleging an error apparent on the face of the record.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the orders sought for in this application
  2. Whether the High Court, when acting as an appellate court, has power to review its own appellate decision

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the 1st and 2nd respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of Judgments — Power of High Court to Review Appellate Decisions
The High Court has no power to review its own decision given on appeal. An application for review can only be directed to the court of first instance that passed the decree or made the order.
Review of Judgments — Interpretation of Section 82 Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 CPR
Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules refer to 'the court which passed the decree or made the order' as the court of first instance, not an appellate court. The distinction between the court to which an application for review is made and the appellate court with a pending appeal is clearly maintained.
Review of Judgments — Application to the Judge Who Made the Order
An application for review must be made to the judge who passed the decree or made the order, provided that judge is still attached to the court and not precluded by absence or other cause. Where the judge is no longer a member of the bench, Order 46 rule 4 applies.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

  • Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd (1979) HCB 12
  • Outa Levi v Uganda Transport Corporation [1975] HCB 353
  • Re Dr John Chrizestom Kiyimba Kato (Miscellaneous Cause No. 29 of 1989)
  • Erimiya Serunkuma v Elizabeth Nandyose [1959] EA 127

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

John_Matovu_Mulindwa_&_19_others_v_Naiga_Rosemary,_Masengere_Stephen_&_Magandazi_Lubega_Aloysius_(Miscellaneous_Application_94_of_2024)_[2024]_UGHCLD_40_(19_February_2024)
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.