Kasoro & Anor v Bonabana (Miscellaneous Application No. 002 of 2016)
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.
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 appellate court's failure to re-evaluate evidence does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review, but rather a ground for further appeal. Review jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent time limits for filing appeals. The application for review brought five years after judgment, when the proper remedy was an appeal within thirty days, was dismissed as an abuse of process.
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs
Facts
The applicants sought review of an appellate judgment delivered in July 2015 dismissing their appeal in a land dispute. The underlying suit concerned ownership of land at Maguru in Fort Portal Municipality. The trial court had dismissed the plaintiff's claim that she was the lawful owner, finding the land belonged to the late Kasoro Charles. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. Five years later, in 2016, after the respondent served a bill of costs and initiated execution, the applicants applied for review, arguing that the appellate court failed to exercise its duty to re-evaluate and re-appraise the evidence as required by law.
Issues
- Whether the first appellate court failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not re-evaluating, re-appraising and scrutinising the evidence as required under Section 80(1)(a) and (b) of the Civil Procedure Act.
- Whether the alleged failure to exercise appellate jurisdiction constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Orders
- Application for review dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
Cases cited (3)
- Banco Araba Esponol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
- Edson Kanyabweru v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
- A.G & ULC Vs James Marting Kamoga & James Kamuli
Cases citing this judgment (2)
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.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.