Wakilii

Kampala Disabled Traders Business Association Co Ltd v Kampala District Union of People With Disability Co. Ltd and KCCA (Miscellaneous Application No. 1250 of 2019)

High Court · [2020] UGHCLD 1250 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 415 of 2017, seeking to set aside judgment, be joined as party, and alternative reliefs
Decision
Application allowed; judgment in Civil Suit No. 415 of 2017 set aside; matter to be reheard with applicant joined as party

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 has jurisdiction to review a judgment even where an appeal is pending, provided the applicant is not a party to the appeal and the grounds of review are not common to the grounds of appeal. An error apparent on the face of the record exists where the 1st respondent was allocated land by a council resolution in September 2007 before the company was incorporated in May 2008. The judgment in Civil Suit No. 415 of 2017 is set aside and the matter is to be heard afresh with the applicant joined as a party to enable effective determination of ownership.

Outcome

Application allowed; judgment in Civil Suit No. 415 of 2017 set aside; matter to be reheard with applicant joined as party

Facts

In 1989, people with disabilities formed Kampala Disabled Business Association, which lobbied Kampala City Council for land allocation. The council initially allocated Plot 11 Lumumba Street, which was later reallocated. In 2007, disabled persons incorporated Kampala Disabled Traders Business Association Co. Ltd (applicant), incorporated 14 November 2007. Following petitions to the president, correspondence ensued. On 13 September 2007, Kampala City Council passed Minute C.8/59/2007 resolving to sublease Plot 7A Namirembe Road to Kampala District Union of Persons with Disabilities (1st respondent). The 1st respondent was only incorporated on 2 May 2008. The 1st respondent later sued KCCA (2nd respondent) in Civil Suit No. 415 of 2017 for renewal of the sublease, obtaining judgment in its favour. The 2nd respondent appealed. The applicant then applied for review, claiming it was in physical possession of the land and that the allocation to the 1st respondent was erroneous as that entity did not exist at the time of the council resolution.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review a judgment where an appeal is pending in the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether the applicant, as a non-party to the original suit, may bring a review application notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal.
  3. Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record in that the 1st respondent was allocated land before its incorporation.
  4. Whether the applicant is an aggrieved party with locus standi to bring the application for review.

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

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Jurisdiction — Pendency of Appeal
By virtue of Order 46 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a party who was not a party to the original suit may apply for review of a judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by another party, except where the ground of appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error apparent on the face of the record is one that is manifest, self-evident, and stares one right in the face, not one that requires a long process of reasoning or argument to establish. Where a local authority allocates land to a company before that company was incorporated, such constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Distinction Between Grounds of Appeal and Grounds of Review
A ground of appeal that the trial judge erred in ordering renewal of a sublease is not common to a ground of review that challenges how the sublease was originally acquired. These are distinct issues that do not preclude a review application under Order 46 rule 1(2).
Land & Property — Leasehold — Allocation of Land to Non-Existent Entity
Where a local authority purports to sublease land to a company that has not yet been incorporated, the question of proprietorship requires determination through a thorough legal process before any renewal of the lease can be ordered.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (3)

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

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kampala_Disabled_Traders_Business_Association_Co_Ltd_v_Kampala_District_Union_of_People_With_Disability_Co._Ltd_and_KCCA_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._1250_of_2019)_[2020]_UGHCLD_
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.