Wakilii

Mukwano Industries Uganda Limited v Kabachope Juliet and 4 Others (Misc Application No. 0057 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1379 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Miscellaneous application arising from High Court Revision Application No. 001 of 2017, seeking to add legal representatives of deceased party and appoint independent valuer
Decision
Legal representatives added as parties; application for new valuer dismissed; existing valuation report stands

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 to add the legal representatives of the deceased original applicant as parties to the revision proceedings under Order 24 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. However, the court declined to appoint a new independent valuer, finding that a court-appointed valuer had already issued a valuation report in 2017 pursuant to the revision orders. The applicant's failure to receive the report at the time did not warrant a fresh valuation. Any challenge to the existing valuation report must be pursued through appropriate legal channels.

Outcome

Legal representatives added as parties; application for new valuer dismissed; existing valuation report stands

Facts

Mukwano Industries Uganda Limited (formerly A.K. Oils and Fats Ltd) held a lease on land in Kiryandongo District. Following litigation, the High Court in Revision Application No. 001 of 2017 ordered that a qualified property valuer be appointed to value the interest of Alikanjero Wanda in 422.47 acres based on current market value. Before the valuation process was completed, Alikanjero Wanda died. The applicant waited for the family to appoint an administrator, then filed an application under the Succession Act. The respondents were subsequently granted letters of administration in Administration Cause No. 20 of 2021. The applicant then brought this miscellaneous application to add the legal representatives as parties and to appoint an independent valuer. During the proceedings, it emerged that the court had already appointed Valuer Limited in October 2017, and a valuation report had been filed on 20 October 2017, though the applicant claimed never to have received it.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents, who are the legal representatives of the late Alikanjero Wanda, should be made parties to Revision Application No. 001 of 2017.
  2. Whether the court should appoint an independent valuer in accordance with the orders made in High Court Revision Application No. 001 of 2017.
  3. Whether terms of reference should be established for a newly appointed valuer.

Orders

  • The respondents are hereby added as parties to High Court Revision Application No. 001 of 2017, as legal representatives of the late Alikanjero Wanda.
  • It is declared that there is already a valuation report issued by a court-appointed valuer following the orders issued by this court in High Court Revision Application No. 001 of 2017.
  • The parties shall bear their costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Death of Party — Substitution of Legal Representatives — Order 24 rule 3
Where a party to proceedings dies and the cause of action survives, the court shall, on application, cause the legal representative of the deceased to be made a party and proceed with the suit.
Civil Procedure — Execution of Orders — Appointment of Court Valuer — Finality
Where a court has appointed a valuer pursuant to its orders and a valuation report has been filed, the mere fact that a party did not receive a copy of the report at the time does not warrant setting aside the valuation and ordering a fresh one, particularly where seven years have elapsed and the party now has access to the report.
Civil Procedure — Scope of Application — Pleadings — Exceeding Prayer
A party who moves the court for appointment of a valuer on the assumption that none has been appointed cannot, upon discovering that a valuation report already exists, use the same application to challenge the contents and accuracy of that report without proper pleadings to that effect.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (2)

  • Rex v Sussex Justices (1924) 1 KB 256
  • Simbamanyo v Seyani Brothers Company (U) Ltd (HCMA No. 555 of 2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mukwano Industries Uganda Limited v Kabachope Juliet and 4 Others (Misc Application No. 0057 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 1379 (15 December 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.