Luwemba & Another v Nakibirango & 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 349 of 2022)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the application for review, holding that a second review of the same subject matter is barred under Order 46 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court found that applicants who were strangers to the original proceedings lacked the correct procedural standing to seek review. Instead, they should have applied to set aside the consent judgment, sought to be joined as defendants, or filed an independent suit.

Outcome

Application dismissed with direction that applicants employ correct procedure

Facts

The applicants, who are children of the late Kiggundu George William, sought to review a ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 614 of 2019 which had set aside a consent judgment in Civil Suit No. 136 of 2014. The consent judgment had distributed the estate of the deceased, including land at Kyebando. The 1st respondent, the widow of the deceased, successfully had the consent judgment set aside on the ground that the principal residential holding had been decreed to belong to her in earlier proceedings (HCCS No. 1046 of 1996, upheld in Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2003). The applicants, who were not parties to either the original suit or the first review application, argued that the ruling gave total ownership of the suit property to the 1st respondent, thereby affecting their interests as beneficiaries of the estate. They claimed this was an error on the face of the record.

Issues

1. Whether the ruling and orders by the High Court vide Miscellaneous Application No. 614 of 2019 should be reviewed and set aside.
2. Whether the applicants, as strangers to the original suit, have locus standi to bring a review application under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
3. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 614 of 2019.
4. Whether a second review application is barred under Order 46 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• The applicants, being strangers to Civil Suit No. 136 of 2014 from which Miscellaneous Application No. 614 of 2019 arose, ought to employ the correct procedure for orders that property comprised in Kyadondo Block 210 Plot 173 land at Kyabando be treated differently from the manner envisaged in the consent judgment in Civil Suit No. 136 of 2014.
• Each party bears its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Judicature Act s.33
• Civil Procedure Act s.82
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 46 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 46 r.2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 46 r.7
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 46 r.8
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 r.12
• Judicature Act 1873 s.24(5)

Cases cited (14)

• John Lubega and Another v UBC and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 589 of 2019)
• Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd [1972] HCB 12
• Adonia v Mutekanga [1970] EA 429
• Nalebe Ephrance Kiyingi v Solome Bbosa and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 213 of 2013)
• Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Kato [2001] 2 EA 173
• Mpigi Town Council v Jamil Kisuule (Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 2016)
• Batuk K. Vyas v Sutrat Borough Municipality and Others [1958] BOM 133
• Ladak Abdulla Mohamed Hussein v Griffiths Isingoma Kakiiza and 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1995)
• Jackques v Harrison (1883-4) 12 AC 165
• Mohamed Allibhai v W.E. Bukenya Mukasa and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
• Nakibirango Janet Kiggundu v Perusi Bukirwa and the Administrator General (High Court Civil Suit No. 1046 of 1996)
• Perusi Bukirwa v Nakibirango Janet Kiggundu (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2003)
• Civil Suit No. 136 of 2014
• Misc. Application No. 614 of 2019

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Sanyu Africa Research Institute (SAFRI) v Sanyu Africa Research Institute (SAFRI) Limited (Petition 9524 of 2022)

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