Wakilii

Makanga David v Madrine Sanyu [2026] UGHC 666

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to review, vary or set aside a High Court ruling delivered on appeal from a Registrar's temporary injunction order, with prayers for maintenance of the status quo and stay of execution
Decision
Application for review dismissed; the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 3072 of 2023 setting aside the temporary injunction stands, with the main suit still pending

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 held that the High Court does have jurisdiction to review a decision it gave on appeal under the Civil Procedure Act and Rules, declining to follow Kalangwa v Senyama and preferring David Ochieng Okolongo. Failure to attach the impugned order was not fatal, as Order 46 rule 1 requires only that an applicant be aggrieved by a decree or order; technicality must yield to article 126(2)(e). The objection that no grounds for review existed could not be determined without investigating facts and so was not a preliminary objection. On the merits, the complaint that the appellate judge ignored evidence required re-evaluation of evidence, disclosed no error apparent on the record, and amounted to a disguised appeal. Application dismissed, no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 3072 of 2023 setting aside the temporary injunction stands, with the main suit still pending

Facts

The applicant purchased Busiro Block 397 Plot 3667 at Bweya, Kajjansi Town Council in 2019 and claimed the plot enjoyed an existing access road shared with the respondent's neighbouring plots. The respondent, who had purchased Plots 611 and 614 in 2006 and amalgamated them into Plot 4133, blocked the disputed access with hard core stones and a drum, contending no access road ever served the applicant's plot and that he was trespassing. The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 583 of 2023 seeking, among other reliefs, a permanent injunction restraining blocking of the access road, and Miscellaneous Application No. 1306 of 2023 for a temporary injunction. An Assistant Registrar visited the locus and on 29 September 2023 granted the injunction, additionally ordering the respondent to open the road within 15 days. On appeal in Miscellaneous Application No. 3072 of 2023, Basaza J held that order improper and illegal because it reversed the status quo and predetermined the main suit, and set it aside. The applicant then sought review of that appellate ruling, alleging the judge failed to consider the survey report, cadastral sheet and locus findings.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review its own decision given on appeal.
  2. Whether the failure to attach the order sought to be reviewed renders the application incurably defective.
  3. Whether the objection that no grounds for review were disclosed raises a pure point of law capable of determination as a preliminary objection.
  4. Whether there are sufficient grounds under Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules to warrant review and setting aside of the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 3072 of 2023.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection that the court has no power to review a decision given on appeal overruled.
  • Objection that the application discloses no grounds for review struck out as not a preliminary objection.
  • Preliminary objection based on failure to attach the impugned order overruled.
  • Application for review dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Jurisdiction of the High Court to Review Its Own Decision Given on Appeal
The High Court has jurisdiction to review its own decision given on an appeal brought under the Civil Procedure Act and the Civil Procedure Rules, and the rule in Erimiya Serunkuma v Elizabeth Nandyose is confined to its own peculiar facts.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Requirement of a Pure Point of Law
A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law argued on the assumption that the opposing party's pleaded facts are correct; an objection that cannot be resolved without investigating the truth of disputed factual assertions is not a preliminary objection and will be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Review — Formal Requirements — Failure to Attach Impugned Order
Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires only that the applicant be a person aggrieved by a decree or order; failure to annex the impugned order is not fatal where its existence is undisputed, since substantive justice under article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution prevails over form.
Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record — Distinction from Erroneous Decision
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident on a substantial point of law admitting of no two opinions; an error established only through a long process of reasoning, or a merely erroneous or arguable view, is a ground of appeal and not of review.
Civil Procedure — Review — Review Not to Be Used as a Disguised Appeal
Review is confined to correcting glaring errors on the record or receiving new and important evidence, and cannot be used to retry a case; an application whose grounds require re-evaluation of the evidence is a disguised appeal and must be dismissed.
Land & Property — Temporary Injunctions — Preservation of Status Quo — Predetermination of the Main Suit
A temporary injunction serves only to preserve the status quo pending determination of the main suit, and a court at the interlocutory stage must not make orders, such as compelling removal of obstructions on a disputed access road, which reverse the status quo or effectively resolve the substantive issue in the head suit.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (12)

  • RE NAKIVUBO CHEMISTS (U) LTD [1979] HCB 12
  • YUSUF Vs NOKORACH [1971] EA 104
  • Kalangwa v Senyama (Miscellaneous Application No. 1622 of 2021)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • Erimiya Serunkuma Vs Elizabeth Nandyose [1959] EA 127
  • David Ochieng Okolongo v Dr. Okoth Joshua & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 47 of 2025)
  • John Matovu Mulindwa & 19 Others v Naiga Rosemary & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 94 of 2024)
  • Consortium of EAA Company Ltd & Anor Vs Quality Inspection Services Inc. Japan & Anor HCMA No. 1048 & 1109 of 2024
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs West End. Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Farm Input Care Centre Ltd v Klein Karoo Seed Marketing (PTY) Ltd (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 902 of 2018)
  • E.L.T Kiyimba Kaggwa v. Hajji Katende Abdul Nasser [1985] HCB 43
  • Edison Kanyabwera vs. Pastori Tumwebaze SCCA No.6 of 2006

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Makanga David v Madrine Sanyu [2026] UGHC 666 (29 May 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.