Wakilii

Mujurizi James v Byakatonda John and Muyingo Robert (Miscellaneous Application 137 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 469 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend Notice of Motion in related Miscellaneous Application No. 0393 of 2024
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondents

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 leave to amend pleadings. The court held that the proposed amendments would constitute forum shopping as the applicant sought to re-litigate matters already dismissed by another judge and pending on appeal. The court further held that consequential orders for cancellation of titles require a prior judgment in the applicant's favour, which was absent. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

The applicant Mujurizi James sought leave to amend his Notice of Motion in HCMA No. 0393 of 2024 to add prayers for setting aside an ex parte judgment in HCCS No. 549 of 2016, cancelling certificates of title for subdivided plots, and restoring his special certificate of title. The underlying dispute concerned land comprised in Bulemezi Block 973 plot 2 at Kigweri. The applicant had previously filed an application to set aside the ex parte judgment before Justice Kaweesa, which was dismissed on 27 April 2022. He then appealed to the Court of Appeal vide CACA No. 438 of 2022, which remained pending. The applicant claimed he recently learned that the plaintiff in the main suit died on 12 March 2017 before the ex parte judgment was delivered on 21 January 2020, and that the respondents had subdivided the suit property into plots 13, 14, 15, and 16. The respondents opposed the application, producing a death certificate showing the plaintiff died on 12 March 2020 after judgment was delivered, and arguing that the proposed amendments would change the character of the application and that some subdivided plots had been transferred to third parties.

Issues

  1. Whether leave should be granted to the applicant to amend his pleadings in Miscellaneous Application No. 0393 of 2024.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application for leave to amend the Notice of Motion in HCMA No. 0393 of 2024 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Amendment of Pleadings — Forum Shopping — Pending Appeal
A court will not grant leave to amend pleadings where the proposed amendment seeks to re-litigate a matter that has already been determined by another judge and is pending on appeal in a higher court, as this constitutes improper forum shopping.
Amendment of Pleadings — Change of Character — Cause of Action
An amendment that changes the character of an application from one challenging execution proceedings and legal capacity to one challenging the underlying judgment and decree will not be allowed, as it constitutes the substitution of one distinct cause of action for another.
Additional Evidence — Appellate Proceedings
Where an applicant seeks to introduce new evidence that was not available at trial, the proper forum for adducing such evidence is the appellate court hearing the appeal against the trial court's decision, not a fresh application in the trial court.
Consequential Orders — Cancellation of Title — Prerequisites
For a court to issue consequential orders for cancellation of certificates of title under section 177 of the Registration of Titles Act, there must first be a valid recovery of land by the applicant pursuant to a judgment in their favour. An applicant who seeks to set aside a judgment against them cannot obtain consequential orders for cancellation of titles.
Cancellation of Title — Third Party Rights — Right to be Heard
Where land has been subdivided and titles issued to third parties who are not parties to the proceedings, a court cannot grant orders for cancellation of those titles without affording the registered proprietors their constitutional right to be heard.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (11)

  • Eastern Bakery v Castelino (CA.CA No. 30 of 1958)
  • Gaso Transport Services Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (SCCA No. 04 of 1994)
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2002)
  • Gaso Transport Services Limited v Kikambi (Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2002)
  • Muwolooza & Brothers v N Shah & Co Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010)
  • Lubowa Gyaliira & ors v Makerere University (HCMA No. 471 of 2009)
  • Attorney General & Anor v DMW (u) Ltd (Civil Application No. 314 of 2020)
  • Attorney General v Paul K Ssemwogerere & Ors (Constitutional Application No. 02 of 2004)
  • Mubiru Christopher & 3 ors v Baliyanja Robert (Miscellaneous Cause No. 009 of 2024)
  • Park Royal v Uganda Land Commission & Ors (Miscellaneous Cause No. 46 of 2014)
  • Kalibbala & anor v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 070 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mujurizi James v Byakatonda John and Muyingo Robert (Miscellaneous Application 137 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 469 (26 June 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.