Wakilii

Kihanga and 4 Others v Nalweyiso (Civil Application 63 of 2019)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 300 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment arising from civil appeal arising from civil suit
Decision
Application for review dismissed

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 court dismissed the application for review. The applicants argued the appellate court erred by ordering the respondent to utilize 3½ acres when the total suit land measured only 3.503 acres. The court found no error, holding that there were two plots under dispute and the 3.509 acres referred only to one plot (Block 112 Plot 50), while the second plot (Plot 51) was left for the applicants' utilization.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed

Facts

The respondent had instituted Civil Suit No. 87 of 2009 at the Chief Magistrate's Court at Mpigi, obtaining judgment in her favor. The applicants appealed to the High Court (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2016), which held that both parties were lawful occupants and should share the land, with the respondent allowed to use 3½ acres and the applicants the rest. The applicants then sought review of this appellate judgment, claiming an error on the face of the record because the total suit land measured only 3.503 acres, making it impossible to allocate 3½ acres to the respondent without risk of evicting them. The applicants proposed allocating the respondent a smaller portion measuring 50x80 feet near a graveyard.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellate court judgment contained an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
  2. Whether the order allowing the respondent to utilize 3½ acres when the total suit land measured 3.503 acres was erroneous.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Jurisdictional Basis
An application for review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act requires an error apparent on the face of the record, and the court will not grant review where the alleged error stems from a misunderstanding of the original orders rather than an actual error in the judgment.
Land & Property — Land Disputes — Multiple Plots — Interpretation of Court Orders
Where court orders concern multiple plots of land under dispute, each plot must be considered separately in determining what land was allocated to which party, and orders referring to acreage of one plot do not necessarily apply to all disputed land.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (2)

  • Mboizi Dison v Dauli David Robert and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 0080 of 2014)
  • Dorothy TMA v Elizabeth Muller and Another (Civil Suit No. 229 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kihanga_and_4_Others_v_Nalweyiso_(Civil_Application_63_of_2019)_[2022]_UGHCLD_300_(17_March_2022)
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.