Wakilii

Khainza & 4 Others v Mweru (Miscellaneous Application 437 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 122 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 52 to set aside orders of the Deputy Registrar made in a review application
Decision
Application dismissed; Applicants advised that the only available remedy is by way of appeal under Order 50 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 2 · distinguished in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 2 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations steady — 6 citing cases on record, 6 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 held that an application to set aside orders of the Deputy Registrar brought under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules was incompetent. Order 50 Rule 8 provides the exclusive remedy of appeal by notice of motion for persons aggrieved by orders of the Registrar. Section 98 inherent powers can only be invoked where no express law or rule is applicable. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed; Applicants advised that the only available remedy is by way of appeal under Order 50 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Facts

The Applicants, as administrators of an estate, filed a miscellaneous application under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act seeking to set aside orders made by the Deputy Registrar in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 331 of 2023. Those orders had varied earlier orders made by the same Deputy Registrar in Miscellaneous Application No. 318 of 2023. The Applicants contended that the Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction to vary or review his own orders, thereby occasioning an illegality. The Respondent raised preliminary objections arguing that the application was incompetent because Order 50 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules prescribes appeal as the exclusive remedy against orders of the Registrar, and that one cannot review what is already reviewed.

Issues

  1. Whether the application filed under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act was competent in law given that Order 50 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules prescribes an appeal as the remedy against orders of the Registrar.
  2. Whether the court could review orders already reviewed by the Deputy Registrar.

Orders

  • 1st preliminary objection upheld.
  • 2nd preliminary objection upheld.
  • Application dismissed for being filed under incorrect provisions of law.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers of Court — Applicability of Section 98 Civil Procedure Act — Where Express Procedural Remedy Exists
Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, which confers inherent powers on the court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice, can only be invoked where no express law or rule is applicable to the matter in issue before the court. Where a specific statutory remedy exists, the inherent jurisdiction cannot be used as an alternative route.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Orders of the Registrar — Exclusive Statutory Remedy
Order 50 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides the exclusive remedy for any person aggrieved by an order of the Registrar, which is by way of appeal by notice of motion to the High Court. An application to set aside such orders under section 98 or Order 52 is incompetent in law.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Bar in Law — Improper Invocation of Jurisdiction
Where an applicant invokes the wrong statutory provision or procedure, the proper course is to dismiss the application as incompetent, not to entertain it on the merits. The primary law governing the specific cause of action should take precedence when initiating any case in court.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Anatolia Enterprises Ltd v Tweyambe Esau t/a Crane Force Auctioneers (Miscellaneous Application No. 210 of 2015)
  • Oscar Andreas Cardenas Espinosa v Nakimuli Mariam Cardenas (Miscellaneous Application No. 112 of 2017)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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

↓ Download PDF

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

Khainza & 4 Others v Mweru (Miscellaneous Application 437 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 122 (19 March 2025)
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.