Wakilii

Kihire Lazarus v Muhoma Jolly Turyajunwa (Civil Appeal 66 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1213 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate Court decision dismissing an application for review
Decision
Appeal dismissed as incompetent for lack of leave; trial Magistrate's orders upholding the original land suit judgment in favour of the respondent remain in force

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 an appeal against an order dismissing an application for review requires leave of court under Order 44 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Only an order granting review is appealable as of right under Order 44 Rule 1(t). The appellant filed the appeal without seeking leave, rendering it incompetent and nugatory. On the merits, the court found no evidence that the respondent's pleadings were drafted on her behalf triggering the Illiterates' Protection Act, and that non-compliance with witness statement formalities under Order XVIII Rule 5A did not invalidate the statements. The appeal was dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as incompetent for lack of leave; trial Magistrate's orders upholding the original land suit judgment in favour of the respondent remain in force

Facts

The respondent, as administrator of her late husband's estate, sued her son and the appellant for trespass on land originally owned jointly by her late husband and another as tenants in common. Between 2013 and 2015, the respondent's son sold 11 ndundes to the appellant without the respondent's consent. The appellant forcefully took possession. The Chief Magistrate's Court found in favour of the respondent, ordering the appellant to vacate and pay UGX 10,000,000 in general damages. The appellant filed an application for review which was dismissed. The appellant then appealed to the High Court without seeking leave of court.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal was competent having been filed without leave of court where the lower court dismissed an application for review.
  2. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in law by misdirecting himself on the application of Section 3 of the Illiterates' Protection Act.
  3. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in according inapplicable weight to the substantiality test regarding non-compliance with Order XVIII Rule 5A of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  4. Whether the trial Magistrate misdirected himself on what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Orders of the trial Magistrate upheld.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Review Applications
An appeal lies as of right only from an order granting an application for review under Order 44 Rule 1(t) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Where an application for review is dismissed, the aggrieved party must first seek leave of court under Order 44 Rule 1(2) before filing an appeal. An appeal filed without the required leave is incompetent and nugatory.
Statutory Interpretation — Illiterates' Protection Act — Shield Not Sword
The Illiterates' Protection Act is intended as a shield to protect illiterate persons from being taken advantage of, not as a sword to be used against them in courts of law. Where an illiterate person has not denied the contents of a document and can account for those contents, the Act cannot be invoked to invalidate the document absent evidence that the person did not understand it.
Civil Procedure — Witness Statements — Formal Requirements — Directory vs Mandatory
The requirements under Order XVIII Rule 5A of the Civil Procedure Rules that witness statements be dated, numbered, and signed at the bottom of every page are directory and not mandatory. Non-compliance with these formal requirements does not result in total invalidity of the witness statement.
Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and manifest without requiring elaborate argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning to establish it. Where an error can only be established through argument or where two opinions are reasonably possible, it cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A misdirection by a judicial officer on a matter of law does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (20)

  • Attorney General v Florence Baliraine (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2003)
  • Kilama Tonny and Another v Mrs Grace Perpetua Otim (High Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2019)
  • Baryaija Julius v Karamagi Boniface and Another (Civil Appeal No. 301 of 2017)
  • Kasaala Growers Co-operative Society v Kakooza and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2010)
  • Ngoma Ngime v Electoral Commission and Hon. Winnie Byanyima (Election Petition No. 11 of 2002)
  • Tikens Francis and Another v The Electoral Commission and 2 Others (High Court Election Petition No. 1 of 2012)
  • Farm Inputs Care Centre Limited v Klein Karoo Seeds Marketing (PTY) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 861 of 2021)
  • Nyamogo and Nyamongo Advocates v Kago [2001] 2 EA
  • Kampala Capital Authority v Kabandize and Others (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2014)
  • Coghlan v Cumberland (1898) 1 Ch. 704
  • Fr. Narsensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Nyero v Olweny and Others (Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2018)
  • Katumba Byaruhanga v Edward Kyewalabye Musoke (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Robinah Matanda and 11 Others v P.R. Patel and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 258 of 2020)
  • Baguma s/o Kiza v L. Kadoma [1979] HCB 183
  • Hwan Sung Ltd v M&D Timber Merchants and Transporters Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2016)
  • Dr. Sheikh Ahmed Mohamed Kisule v Greenland Bank (In Liquidation) (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2010)
  • Belex Tours & Travel Ltd v Crane Bank and Another (Civil Appeal No. 71 of 2009)
  • NSSF and Sentongo v Alcon International (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009)
  • Nywerisa John Baptist v Valeria Komuhangi (High Court Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kihire Lazarus v Muhoma Jolly Turyajunwa (Civil Appeal 66 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 1213 (12 September 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.