Wakilii

Kuteesa Ruth and Another v Binta Elizabeth (Miscellaneous Application 181 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 346 · 2025 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 No. 97 of 2018
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 High Court dismissed the application for review. The court found that the applicant confused two distinct appeals (Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2018 and Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2018) and that the appeal in question had not been dismissed and later determined without reinstatement. The court held that the Inspectorate of Courts report dated 22 August 2018 was not new evidence as the applicant had been copied on it and the trial court had already made findings on forgery. The court found no error apparent on the face of the record as the lower court record was only received 15 months after the retrial order was made.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed

Facts

The applicant sought review of a judgment in Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2018 which had ordered a retrial after setting aside the judgment of the Chief Magistrate's Court in Land Civil Suit No. 116 of 2018. The applicant claimed the appeal had been dismissed for want of prosecution on 12 September 2020 but was later determined without reinstatement. The applicant also claimed to have discovered new evidence in 2024 in the form of an Inspectorate of Courts report dated 22 August 2018 showing that the respondent's cause of action was based on forged court orders in EMA No. 441 of 2014 arising from a non-existent Civil Suit No. 14 of 2014. The applicant argued that the appellate court had mistakenly believed the lower court record was unavailable when ordering the retrial. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the grounds did not meet the test for review and that the applicant had failed to demonstrate any legal grievance.

Issues

  1. Whether the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2018 should be reviewed and set aside on the ground that the appeal had been dismissed for want of prosecution and later determined without formal reinstatement.
  2. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in ordering a retrial on the mistaken belief that the lower court record was unavailable.
  3. Whether the applicant discovered new and important evidence (the Inspectorate of Courts report) after the exercise of due diligence that would justify review of the judgment.
  4. Whether a cause of action derived from allegedly forged judicial records can be entertained by courts of law.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and should not require elaborate argument to be established. It must strike one on mere looking at the record and should not require a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Discovery of New Evidence — Due Diligence Requirement
For new evidence to ground an application for review under Order 46 Rule 1(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules, it must be evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced at the time when the decree was passed or order made. An applicant who was copied on a report at the time it was issued and who fails to explain why the report only came to their knowledge years later has not satisfied the due diligence requirement.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Limited Purpose — Not an Appeal in Disguise
An application for review has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. In exercise of jurisdiction under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review may be granted only when the court considers it necessary to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the court.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution — Reinstatement Required
Once a court dismisses an appeal for want of prosecution, it becomes functus officio and can only revisit hearing of the appeal upon a formal application to reinstate it. However, where two distinct appeals with different case numbers and arising from different proceedings exist, dismissal of one appeal does not affect the other.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Attorney General and Another v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Hulisani Viccel Sithangu v Capricon District Municipality (593/2022 [2023] ZASCA 151 (14th November 2023)
  • Igga Anyi Godfrey and 14 Others v Registered Trustees of PAG (Miscellaneous Application No. 011 of 2016)
  • Farm Inputs Care Centre Limited v Klein Karoo Seeds Marketing Cpty Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kuteesa_Ruth_and_Another_v_Binta_Elizabeth_(Miscellaneous_Application_181_of_2025)_[2025]_UGHCLD_346_(6_October_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.