Wakilii

Kasule & Another v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Suit 751 of 1991; Civil Suit 752 of 1991)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 56 · 1992 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment and decree under Orders 42(1) and 48 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Decision
Matter set down for re-hearing to allow applicant to lead evidence on ownership of Plot 536

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 granted an application for review of its judgment under Order 42 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, finding the applicant to be an aggrieved party where the court had not declared Plot 536 to be her property. The court held that notwithstanding counsel's negligence in failing to lead evidence and tender the title deed, the applicant had sufficient reason under Order 42 Rule 1 to obtain a review. However, the grant of the review application did not automatically revise the judgment; the applicant would be required to give evidence and prove her case at a re-hearing.

Outcome

Matter set down for re-hearing to allow applicant to lead evidence on ownership of Plot 536

Facts

The applicants were decree holders in two consolidated civil suits against the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board. Following judgment delivered on 22nd September 1992, the applicants sought review of the judgment on the ground that evidence had been led on ownership of land comprised in Block 29 Plot 536, but through inadvertence the certificate of title was not tendered in court. The applicants contended that the purported lease to the Patels (through whom the defendant claimed management) had been nullified by court, entitling the first applicant to claim her reversionary interest in Plot 536. The applicants argued that failure to declare Plot 536 as the applicant's property would work injustice as she remained the registered proprietor but without a court order to claim it. Counsel for the applicants had conducted the trial but failed to tender the title deed in evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should grant an application to review its earlier judgment where evidence on ownership of Plot 536 (Block 29) was not led at trial due to counsel's inadvertence in failing to tender the certificate of title.

Orders

  • Application for review granted.
  • Applicant to pay costs of the application to the respondent.
  • Hearing of evidence to review judgment fixed for 14th December 1992 at 9:00 a.m.
  • Judgment debtor to be served.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Grounds for Review — Aggrieved Party
Under Order 42 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order from which no appeal has been preferred may apply for review of the judgment for any other sufficient reason, and the court which passed the decree may grant the review where the applicant is an aggrieved party.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Counsel Negligence — Sufficient Reason
Notwithstanding negligence by counsel in failing to lead evidence at trial, an applicant may constitute an aggrieved party for purposes of review where the court did not make a declaration affecting the applicant's substantive rights.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Effect of Grant of Review — Re-hearing Required
The grant of an application for review does not automatically result in revision of the judgment or decree. Under Order 42 Rule 6, where an application for review is granted, the court may at once re-hear the case or make such order regarding the re-hearing as it thinks fit, and the applicant must give evidence and prove her case before a proper review of the judgment can be made.

Legislation cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasule & Another v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Suit 751 of 1991; Civil Suit 752 of 1991) [1992] UGHC 56 (7 December 1992)
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.