Wakilii

Lulwa George v Kiranda Ahmed (Civil Revision No. 2 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 236 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for revision from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment in Civil Suit No. 070 of 2022
Decision
Application for revision dismissed; lower court judgment upheld

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

Held that the High Court's revisionary jurisdiction under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act is supervisory and narrow in scope, not designed to provide a rehearing on merits. Where an applicant seeks to challenge findings of fact and contractual interpretation made by a trial court after full participation and without raising the complaint at trial, the proper remedy is appeal, not revision. An issue not pleaded or raised at trial cannot be introduced for the first time in revision proceedings. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for revision dismissed; lower court judgment upheld

Facts

The respondent instituted Civil Suit No. 070 of 2022 in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Mukono seeking declarations of ownership over a portion of land measuring 10ft by 80ft, eviction, permanent injunction and damages. The respondent's case was that on 16 June 2015 he purchased the land from the applicant for UGX 800,000 pursuant to a written agreement. Evidence was led from the respondent and the drafter of the agreement, who testified that he drafted the agreement and measured the land in the presence of both parties. The applicant's defence at trial was that he did not sell the land but only granted temporary permission for access. The trial magistrate evaluated the evidence and entered judgment for the respondent. The applicant then brought this revision application alleging that the agreement relied upon by the trial court offended the Illiterates Protection Act because it was written in Luganda whereas he is Lugbara and illiterate. The respondent opposed the application, contending that the applicant was improperly attempting to re-litigate matters of evidence and merits through the revision jurisdiction.

Issues

  1. Whether this Court can properly exercise its revisionary jurisdiction in the present matter.
  2. Whether the applicant has demonstrated any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the proceedings of the trial court.
  3. What orders should issue.

Orders

  • The application for revision is dismissed.
  • The judgment and orders of the Chief Magistrate's Court in Civil Suit No. 070 of 2022 are hereby upheld.
  • The applicant shall pay the costs of this application to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Revision Jurisdiction — Scope and Limits — Distinction from Appellate Jurisdiction
The revision jurisdiction of the High Court under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act is supervisory in character and narrow in scope. It is not designed to provide a rehearing on the merits of a case. A wrong or erroneous conclusion of law or fact, or even a misinterpretation of the law reached within the jurisdiction of a judicial officer, cannot ordinarily ground revision, for such conclusions are judicial determinations made in the exercise of lawful authority and are amenable to appeal rather than revision.
Civil Procedure — Revision — Material Irregularity — Requirement to Demonstrate Miscarriage of Justice
Not every irregularity will suffice to ground revision; it must be one of substance and must be shown to have occasioned a miscarriage of justice. Where an applicant seeks to challenge findings of fact and contractual interpretation made by a trial court after full participation in the proceedings, without demonstrating jurisdictional error or procedural impropriety, the application for revision must fail.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Parties Bound by Pleadings — New Issues Cannot Be Raised After Judgment
It is a cardinal rule of civil litigation that parties are bound by their pleadings and that a court ought not to base its decision on an unpleaded issue. A party cannot, after judgment, introduce a fundamentally new factual foundation. Where an issue was not pleaded or raised at trial, it cannot be introduced for the first time in revision proceedings, as this would deny the opposing party a fair opportunity to respond.
Evidence — Admissions in Pleadings — Binding Effect on Maker
Admissions in pleadings constitute the best evidence against the maker, as recognised under section 57 of the Evidence Act. Where a party expressly admits facts in their written statement of defence, such admissions are binding and may be relied upon by the court in reaching its decision.
Civil Procedure — Appellate and Supervisory Jurisdiction — Interference with Findings of Fact
An appellate or supervisory court should not lightly interfere with findings of fact based on evaluation of evidence by a trial court unless shown to be perverse. Where a trial magistrate has heard viva voce evidence from both sides, evaluated credibility and made findings, such findings should be respected absent demonstration of perversity.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (7)

  • Olegun v Arono (High Court Civil Revision 2012)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v Hi-Tech Telecom Pty Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2009)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 22
  • Tororo Cement Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2001)
  • Luyimbazi Sulaiman v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2019)
  • Peters v Sunday Post Ltd [1958] EA 424
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lulwa George v Kiranda Ahmed (Civil Revision No. 2 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 236 (4 March 2026)
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.