Wakilii

Mumpi v Ngeso and 2 others (Miscellaneous Application 324 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 605 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of an order dismissing a preliminary objection in HCMA No. 275 of 2022
Decision
Application for review granted; preliminary objection in HCMA No. 275 of 2022 upheld; HCMA No. 275 of 2022 dismissed with costs to the applicant

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 allowed the application for review and set aside its earlier order dismissing the preliminary objection. The Court held that the inadvertent failure by the applicant's counsel to attach relevant annexures (proceedings and ruling from HCMA No. 249 of 2020) to the affidavit in reply constituted sufficient reason for review under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Upon reviewing HCMA No. 275 of 2022, the Court found that it was a disguised appeal improperly brought under inherent jurisdiction provisions instead of following the proper appeal or reference procedure under Order 50 Rules 7 and 8. The preliminary objection was upheld and HCMA No. 275 of 2022 was dismissed.

Outcome

Application for review granted; preliminary objection in HCMA No. 275 of 2022 upheld; HCMA No. 275 of 2022 dismissed with costs to the applicant

Facts

Mumpi George, as administrator of the estate of the late Eriakim Mumpi, had successfully obtained orders for execution against the respondents in HCMA No. 249 of 2020, wherein the Deputy Registrar ordered execution to proceed against persons intermeddling with the estate of the late Gashodo Gideon (a judgment debtor). The respondents filed HCMA No. 275 of 2022 seeking to set aside those orders. When that application came up for hearing, the applicant raised a preliminary objection that the application was improperly before the court because it sought to challenge the Deputy Registrar's orders without filing an appeal or reference as required by Order 50 Rules 7 and 8. The court dismissed the preliminary objection on grounds that the applicant failed to attach annexures proving the existence of HCMA No. 249 of 2020 to his affidavit in reply. The applicant then brought this application for review, attaching certified copies of the proceedings, ruling and orders in HCMA No. 249 of 2020, and arguing that the inadvertent omission of these documents was sufficient reason for review.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses grounds for review of the ruling dismissing the preliminary objection in Miscellaneous Application No. 275 of 2022.
  2. Whether the inadvertent omission of annexures to the applicant's affidavit in reply constitutes sufficient reason for review.
  3. Whether Miscellaneous Application No. 275 of 2022 was properly before the court given that it sought to set aside orders of the Deputy Registrar without following the appeal or reference procedure.

Orders

  • The order of the court dismissing the preliminary objection in Misc. App. No. 275 of 2022 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The preliminary objection in Miscellaneous Application No. 275 of 2022 is upheld.
  • HCMA No. 275 of 2022 is dismissed with costs.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of Orders — Sufficient Reason — Inadvertent Omission of Annexures by Counsel
The inadvertent failure by counsel to attach relevant annexures to an affidavit when those documents form part of the court record and are material to the determination of the matter constitutes sufficient reason for review under Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Review — Purpose and Scope — Correction of Mistakes to Enable Proper Settlement of Rights
A review is not an end in itself but is intended to correct a mistake and enable parties to settle their rights in a proper and conclusive manner. Where a ground for review is established, the court should proceed to scrutinize the effect of the evidence which was inadvertently not brought before it.
Appeals from Registrar — Proper Procedure under Order 50 Rules 7 and 8
Any person aggrieved by the orders of a Registrar must appeal to the Judge under Order 50 Rules 7 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules or, in deserving circumstances, the Registrar may refer the matter to the Judge as a reference. An application brought under the inherent jurisdiction provisions (section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and section 33 of the Judicature Act) seeking to set aside orders of a Registrar without following the appeal or reference procedure is a disguised appeal which should not be condoned.
Powers of High Court Judge — Review of Registrar's Decisions
The High Court Judge has powers to review the decision of the Registrar, but such review must be sought through the proper procedural mechanisms including appeal under Order 50 Rules 7 and 8 or through an application for review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (12)

  • Faridah Omar v Sheilah Agonzibwa and Another (Miscellaneous Application 1034 of 2020)
  • Mugo v Wanjiri [1970] EA 481
  • Niagi v Munyiri [1975] EA 179
  • Rosette Kizito v Administrator General and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application 9 of 1986)
  • Ssemanda Edward and 5 Others v Nakku Tereza and Another (Miscellaneous Application 166 of 2019)
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulam Hussein Habib Virani and Another (Civil Appeal 9 of 1993)
  • Makula International v Cardinal Nsubuga Wamala [1982] HCB
  • Muhairwe Caleb Katorogo and Another v Grofin SGB (Uganda) Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application 534 of 2021)
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2004] 2 EA 173
  • Attorney General and Another v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal 8 of 2004)
  • Kaggwa Micheal v Apire John (Miscellaneous Application 142 of 2020)
  • Ladak AM Hussein v Griffiths Isingoma Kakiiza (Supreme Court Civil Appeal 8 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mumpi v Ngeso and 2 others (Miscellaneous Application 324 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 605 (23 May 2024)
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.