Wakilii

Kizito v Bazanye and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 314 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 17 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for revision from Chief Magistrate's Court proceedings in ongoing civil suit concerning land ownership
Decision
Application dismissed and matter remitted to Chief Magistrate's Court for hearing of substantive suit

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 dismissed an application for revision brought under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, holding that revision was untenable where the lower court had not taken any evidence or made any interlocutory decision on ownership of the suit land. The court ordered the file forwarded to the lower court for hearing and conclusion of the substantive suit.

Outcome

Application dismissed and matter remitted to Chief Magistrate's Court for hearing of substantive suit

Facts

The applicant filed an application for revision seeking a declaration that he is the owner of suit property and that the certificate of title is nonexistent and should be nullified. The application arose from ongoing Civil Suit No. 61 of 2017 before the Chief Magistrate's Court of Makindye, in which the plaintiff claimed ownership of a kibanja measuring 40 by 120 feet. The plaint was filed on 8 September 2017, and the defendants filed their defence on 12 December 2017. An amended plaint was filed on 23 November 2020 introducing reference to Block 7 Plot 573 in Nkere Makindye Division, though it was unclear whether leave to amend had been granted. At the time of the revision application, the lower court had not taken any evidence or made any interlocutory decision on ownership.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction to declare the applicant owner of suit property while the substantive suit remains pending in the lower court.
  2. Whether an application for revision is maintainable where the lower court has not taken evidence or made any interlocutory decision on the matter.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • File forwarded to the lower court for hearing and conclusion of Civil Suit No. 61 of 2017.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of Civil Suit No. 61 of 2017.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Revision — Conditions for Exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction
An application for revision under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act is not maintainable where the lower court has not taken any evidence or made any interlocutory decision on the matter in issue.
Civil Procedure — Revision — Premature Applications
The High Court will not exercise its revisional jurisdiction to determine substantive issues of ownership while the substantive suit remains pending and undetermined in the lower court.

Legislation cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kizito_v_Bazanye_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._314_of_2021)_[2023]_UGHCLD_17_(31_January_2023)
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.