Wakilii

Lubega v Uganda Bus Operations Association Investments Limited (Miscellaneous Application 896 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 232 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 2098 of 2021 arising from Civil Suit No. 965 of 2020
Decision
Earlier ruling set aside; matter remitted for inter partes hearing

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 granted the application for review, finding errors apparent on the face of the record. The earlier application had been heard before the scheduled time without evidence that the applicant was notified of the time change, and the court had proceeded on the erroneous assumption that no affidavit in reply had been filed when one had in fact been lodged. The ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 2098 of 2021 was set aside and the matter ordered to be heard inter partes.

Outcome

Earlier ruling set aside; matter remitted for inter partes hearing

Facts

The applicant sought review of a ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 2098 of 2021 which had allowed the second respondent to amend pleadings in Civil Suit No. 965 of 2020. The application had been scheduled for hearing at 12:00 noon on 3 March 2022 but was called and heard at 10:02 am. The applicant contended he was not notified of the time change. The court had granted the earlier application on the basis that it was uncontested, yet the applicant had filed an affidavit in reply on 7 February 2022. The respondent claimed the court clerk had communicated the time change to both parties.

Issues

  1. Whether the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 2098 of 2021 should be reviewed and the subsequent order set aside.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 2098 of 2021 and subsequent order set aside.
  • Miscellaneous Application No. 2098 of 2021 to be heard inter partes.
  • Each party to meet their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Review — Errors Apparent on the Face of the Record — Hearing Before Scheduled Time Without Notice
Where an application is heard before the scheduled time without evidence that all parties were duly notified of the time change, this constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
Review — Errors Apparent on the Face of the Record — Proceeding on Erroneous Factual Basis
Where a court grants an application on the basis that it is uncontested when the record shows an affidavit in reply had been filed, this constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review.
Review — Costs — Errors of Court
Where errors warranting review are attributable to the court rather than the parties, each party should bear their own costs of the review application.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.6
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.8
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lubega v Uganda Bus Operations Association Investments Limited (Miscellaneous Application 896 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 232 (18 August 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.