Kampala Disabled Traders Business Association Co. Limited vs Kampala District Union of People with Disabilities Company Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 125

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.

Holding

Held that an application for review may be brought by a party not involved in the original suit notwithstanding a pending appeal where the ground of review is not common to the ground of appeal. The court found an error apparent on the face of the record: the first respondent was allocated land by a council resolution passed on 13 September 2007, but was not incorporated until 2 May 2008. The judgment in the main suit was set aside, the applicant ordered to be joined as a party, and the matter directed to be heard afresh to determine ownership.

Outcome

Judgment in main suit set aside; applicant joined as party; matter remitted for fresh hearing on ownership

Facts

The first respondent sued the second respondent in Civil Suit No. 415 of 2017 seeking renewal of a sublease over land comprised in Leasehold Register Volume 3854 Folio 20 Plot 7A Namirembe Road. Judgment was entered in the first respondent's favour. The applicant, which claimed to have been in occupation of the suit land since 1986, then brought this review application. The applicant contended that the suit land had been allocated to it and that it had been in continuous occupation through its members. The applicant alleged that a Kampala City Council resolution of 13 September 2007 purported to allocate the suit land to the first respondent, but the first respondent was not incorporated until 2 May 2008. The applicant was incorporated on 14 November 2007. The first respondent argued that the applicant lacked locus standi and that there was no error on the face of the record. A preliminary objection was raised concerning the pendency of an appeal in the Court of Appeal, but was overruled.

Issues

1. Whether the application for review was properly before the High Court given the pendency of an appeal.
2. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the judgment in Civil Suit No. 415 of 2017.
3. Whether the first respondent legally existed at the time the suit land was allocated to it by the Kampala City Council.
4. Whether the applicant has locus standi as an aggrieved party to bring the review application.

Orders

• The judgment in Civil Suit No. 415 of 2017 is hereby set aside and the suit be heard afresh.
• The applicant should be joined as a party to the suit for the issue of ownership to be effectively determined.
• Costs to the application should be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.82
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 46 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 46 r.1(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 51 r.6

Cases cited (3)

• Muwema, Mugerwa & Co. Advocates v Shell Uganda Limited and 10 Others (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2011)
• Kampala Bukenya v Edith Nakandi and Umar Katongole (Miscellaneous Application No. 775 of 2017)
• FX Mubuuke v UEB (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)

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