Wakilii

Kiggundu Lawrence v Kaye Robert and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 372 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 761 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review and setting aside of judgment on admission and decree in Civil Suit No. 985 of 2024
Decision
Judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 985 of 2024 set aside; applicant to be added as defendant and matter to be heard on merits; restitution ordered to restore applicant as registered proprietor

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 held that the applicant was a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act, having been deprived of his property through a judgment obtained without his participation. The court found an error apparent on the face of the record where judgment on admission was entered against the applicant who had never been served with summons, and a defence was fraudulently filed by persons without his instructions. The judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 985 of 2024 were set aside, and an order of restitution was issued to restore the applicant as registered proprietor.

Outcome

Judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 985 of 2024 set aside; applicant to be added as defendant and matter to be heard on merits; restitution ordered to restore applicant as registered proprietor

Facts

The applicant alleged that the 1st respondent filed Civil Suit No. 985 of 2024 against him but he was never served with summons and plaint. A written statement of defence was filed on 8 April 2025 by M/s Lwanyaga & Co. Advocates purportedly on his behalf, without his knowledge or instructions. On 29 May 2025, judgment on admission was entered in the presence of Mr. Sembajja Musa, who claimed to represent the applicant though he had no instructions to do so. The decree was then used to cancel the applicant's name from certificates of title for Busiro Block 327 Plots 1106 and 1107 at Nabingo, and to transfer the land into the names of the 1st and subsequently the 2nd respondent. The applicant maintained he was the true legal owner, had never divested himself of his interest, and had never instructed the said law firm or advocate. He alleged the entire process was fraudulent and violated his constitutional right to be heard.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application raises grounds for review and setting aside of the Judgment on Admission and Decree in Civil Suit No. 985 of 2024.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Application to review and set aside the Judgment on Admission and Decree in Civil Suit No. 985 of 2024 is hereby allowed.
  • The Judgment on Admission and Decree in Civil Suit No. 985 of 2024 are set aside.
  • An order of restitution is issued directing the Respondents, particularly the 3rd Respondent, to restore the suit land's registry and ownership status to the position it was in prior to the issuance of the Judgment and Decree in Civil Suit No. 985 of 2024, with the Applicant as the registered proprietor of Busiro Block 327 Plots 1106 and 1107 land at Nabingo.
  • Civil Suit No. 985 of 2024 shall be heard and determined on merits.
  • The 1st Respondent is ordered to add the Applicant as a Defendant to Civil Suit No. 985 of 2024.
  • The 1st Respondent shall serve the Applicant with the summons to file a defence and Plaint within 07 days from the date this ruling is delivered.
  • The Applicant shall file and serve his written statement of defence within 15 days from the date of service.
  • A Reply to the written statement of defence if any shall be filed within 10 days from the date of service.
  • The case is fixed for mention on 18 September 2025 at 9:15 a.m.
  • Costs of this Application shall abide the outcome of Civil Suit No. 985 of 2024.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of Judgment — Person Aggrieved — Locus Standi
A person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act includes any party who has been deprived of his property or who has suffered a legal grievance where the judgment affects his property, and such a person has locus standi to bring an application for review.
Right to be Heard — Audi Alteram Partem — Non-Derogable Right
The right to be heard (audi alteram partem) is a fundamental non-derogable constitutional right under Articles 28, 42 and 44(c) of the Constitution, and where a party is condemned unheard in proceedings affecting his property rights, he suffers a legal grievance entitling him to seek review of the judgment.
Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Fraudulent Proceedings
Where a judgment on admission is entered against a party who was never served with summons and plaint, and a defence was filed by persons without his knowledge or instructions, this constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review and setting aside of the judgment under Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Review versus Appeal — Distinction — Method of Trial versus Result
The distinction between review and appeal depends on whether it is the result only or the method of trial which is attacked; where the grievance is against the method of trial rather than merely the correctness of the decision, the appropriate procedure is by way of review, and the essential question in review proceedings is not the correctness of the decision but its validity.
Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition and Scope
A mistake or error apparent on the face of the record refers to an evident error which does not require extraneous matter to show its incorrectness; it is an error so manifest and clear that no court would permit it to remain on the record, and it must be one that stares one in the face and on which there cannot be two opinions.
Restitution — Setting Aside of Decree — Restoration of Status Quo Ante
Where a decree is set aside on review, Section 92(1) of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the court to order restitution to restore the parties to the position they would have been in had the decree not been made, including restoration of property rights and registration status.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (16)

  • Muhammed Allibhai v W.E Bukenya Mukasa & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Miter Investment Ltd v East African Portland Cement Company Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 534 of 2012)
  • Exparte Side Botham in re Side Botham (1880) 4 Ch. D 458,456
  • Caroline Turyatemba and 4 Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Petition No. 15 of 2006)
  • R V University of Cambridge [1723J1 Str. 557 (Fortescue J.)
  • Mpungu & Sons Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2001)
  • Semwanga and Others v Kitaka and Others (Consolidated Civil Appeals No. 226 and 227 of 2022)
  • F.X Mubuuke v Uganda Electricity Board (HCMA No. 0098 of 2005)
  • Mohamed Alibhai v E.E. Bukenya Mukasa (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Al-Shafi Investment Group LLC v Ahmed Darwish & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 0901 of 2017)
  • Attorney General and Others v Boniface Byanyima (HCMA No. 01789 of 2000)
  • Levi Uganda Transportation Company [1995] HCB 340
  • Kishor Kumar Dhanji V Ndeffo Limited Civil Case No.170 of 2009
  • Nyamogo and Nyamogo Advocates V Kogo [2001] 1 EA 173
  • Igga Godfrey & Others v The Registered Trustees of Pentecostal Assemblies of God & Another (HCMA No. 11 of 2016)
  • National Bank of Kenya V Ndungu Njau Civil Appeal No.211 of 1996

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiggundu Lawrence v Kaye Robert and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 372 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 761 (18 August 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.