Kigayaaza v Kakooza & Another (Miscellaneous Application 12 of 2019)

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

The Court held that the applicant, though not a party to Civil Appeal No.14 of 2010, was an interested party with standing under Rule 35(2) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules, and the Court had jurisdiction. On reading the appeal judgment, the Court found it had recognised the applicant's purchase of one square mile from Kasaala Growers Cooperative Society as valid and lawful. The warrant of vacant possession issued by the Deputy Registrar did not correspond with that judgment, so the applicant's eviction by the court bailiff was made in error. The Court corrected the error and ordered the applicant restored to possession of the land, with costs.

Outcome

Error in execution corrected; applicant ordered to be reinstated into possession of the one square mile of land he had purchased.

Facts

Following the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No.14 of 2010 (delivered 8 July 2015), the Court recognised that the applicant, Kigayaza Eldadi Ssentongo, had validly purchased one square mile of land from Kasaala Growers Cooperative Society, while the respondents, Kakooza Jonathan and Kalemera Edson, were entitled to the remaining three square miles. The judgment did not order the applicant's eviction. On 10 September 2015 advocates for the parties signed a "consent settlement/decree", endorsed by the Registrar on 15 September 2015. Acting on it, the Registrar issued a warrant for vacant possession dated 27 July 2018 to court bailiff Zairahuka Herbert. Executing the warrant, the bailiff evicted the applicant from his one square mile, although the judgment had authorised no such eviction. The applicant, having unsuccessfully sought correction from the Deputy Registrar, brought this application to be reinstated to possession.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant, a third party to Civil Appeal No.14 of 2010, was an interested party entitled to apply under Rule 35(2) and whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application.
2. Whether the warrant of vacant possession issued by the Deputy Registrar corresponded with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.14 of 2010.
3. Whether the applicant's eviction should be corrected and his possession of the land restored.

Orders

• The error in the execution is corrected.
• The applicant, Kigayaza Eldadi Ssentongo, is to be put back into possession of the specific one square mile of land he purchased from Kasaala Cooperative Society.
• Costs of the application awarded to the applicant, to be paid by the two respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.35(2)

Cases cited (1)

• Kasaala Growers Cooperative Society v Kakooza Jonathan & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2010)

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