Wakilii

Kabagambe v Mbabazi and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 199 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment from Civil Suit No. 12 of 2016, brought by a third party claiming ownership of land that was subject of compensation award
Decision
Application for review dismissed; judgment in Civil Suit No. 12 of 2016 remains undisturbed

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

An application for review of judgment by a third party claiming ownership of land subject to a compensation award was dismissed. The applicant failed to prove on balance of probabilities that land she purchased from the deceased comprised the suit land where trespass occurred. The court found that trespass and destruction of trees happened in 2003, before the applicant's purchases between 2009–2012, and that agreements and title presented did not demonstrate inclusion of the suit land. No error apparent on the record was established.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; judgment in Civil Suit No. 12 of 2016 remains undisturbed

Facts

In Civil Suit No. 12 of 2016, the 1st respondent (administratrix of the late Yowana Tinkasimire's estate) successfully sued the 2nd respondent (Kyenjojo Town Council) for trespass on land measuring 0.84 acres, where the 2nd respondent had constructed a water supply system, access road, and water pipes, and destroyed two eucalyptus trees. Judgment was delivered on 25 February 2021, awarding compensation, general damages, interest, and costs. The applicant, residing in the USA, learned of the judgment through media reports and brought this review application, claiming she owned the suit land, having purchased it from the late Yowana Tinkasimire in several transactions between 2009 and 2012. She attached purchase agreements and a certificate of title for Block 139 Plot 50 at Nyantungo Village. The 1st respondent opposed, contending that the suit land was distinct from the land the applicant purchased, that trespass occurred in 2003 before the applicant's purchases, and that a water facility and road were visible developments at the time of the applicant's transactions. The 2nd respondent supported the application.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has locus standi to apply for review of the judgment in Civil Suit No. 12 of 2016.
  2. Whether the application for review should be allowed.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Locus Standi of Third Party
A third party who was not a party to the original suit has locus standi to apply for review of a judgment under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules if that party can establish that the judgment affected his or her interest in property that was the subject matter of the court's decision.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Discovery of New and Important Evidence
For an application for review based on discovery of new and important evidence to succeed, the evidence must not only be new matter that could not be produced at trial, but must also be demonstrated on a balance of probabilities to be relevant to the subject matter adjudicated and to be such that if submitted at trial it would have had an effect on the outcome of the matter.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error apparent on the face of the record for purposes of review must be an evident error which does not require extraneous matter to show its incorrectness; it must be an error so manifest and clear that no court would permit it to remain on the record. Clerical errors as to names, figures, or dates, which can be corrected under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act (the slip rule), do not constitute errors apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
Civil Procedure — Succession — Joint Administrators — Power to Sue Individually
Where joint administrators of an estate are appointed, an individual administrator has power to bring a suit for the protection and preservation of the estate without involving a co-administrator, provided the suit is not for the benefit of the individual administrator but for the estate and its beneficiaries.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (13)

  • Nakiryowa Majorie Kiddu & Anor. Vs. Maurie S. SerugoKiddu & Anor
  • Waswa Primo Vs. Moulders Luf
  • Trustees of Rubaga Miracle Centre v Mulangira Ssimbwa (Miscellaneous Application No. 576 of 2006)
  • Muhammed Bukenya Mlibai v W.E Bukenya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Kaloli Kabuta v Transroad Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 478 of 2019)
  • Yusuf - Nokra versus [1971] FA 104
  • Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd (1971) HCB 12
  • Natunga Sarah v Erivani Sarah (Miscellaneous Application No. 64 of 2020)
  • Guangdong Chinese Co Ltd v McKnightegenies Ltd (High Court Civil Revision No. 11 of 2011)
  • Silver Byaruhanga v Fr Emmanuel Ruvugwaho (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2004)
  • Edison Kanyabwere v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2004)
  • Godfrey Sekitoleko v Kiyimba Joseph (Civil Suit No. 53 of 2016)
  • Prince J.D.C Mpuga Rukidi v Prince Solomon Kioro (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1994)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabagambe v Mbabazi and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 199 (16 August 2022)
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.