Wakilii

Mutezimana and Another v Nukiyehe and Another (Miscellaneous Application 2878 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 75 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of High Court judgment arising from civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Application for review dismissed but judgment clarified under section 33 of the Judicature Act; respondents declared trespassers except on graveyard portion and ordered to vacate within 90 days

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 dismissed the application for review, holding that the applicants were not aggrieved parties entitled to review as they had succeeded in the appeal. The court found no error apparent on the face of the record but acknowledged the judgment required clarification. Exercising powers under section 33 of the Judicature Act, the court clarified that the respondents are trespassers on the suit kibanja except for the graveyard area, must vacate within 90 days, but retain ownership of the graveyard portion.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed but judgment clarified under section 33 of the Judicature Act; respondents declared trespassers except on graveyard portion and ordered to vacate within 90 days

Facts

The applicants purchased a kibanja from the respondents in 2015 for UGX 2,000,000 and later negotiated with the landlord to obtain a registered title for UGX 13,000,000. The sale agreement dated 22 April 2015 stated that the respondents sold their entire plot to the applicants save for a burial ground. The respondents continued to occupy the land, claiming they had only sold part of the kibanja and retained the portion housing their home, grave yard and garden. The applicants sued in the Chief Magistrate's Court seeking declarations of trespass, eviction and damages. The trial court held that the respondents only sold part of their kibanja. On appeal, the High Court held that the sale agreement was clear: the respondents sold the entire kibanja save for the graveyard. The applicants then sought review of the High Court judgment, claiming it did not make clear orders on trespass and eviction.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants are aggrieved parties entitled to seek review of a judgment in which they were successful.
  2. Whether the High Court judgment in Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2021 contains an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
  3. Whether the High Court judgment required clarification on trespass, eviction and ownership.

Orders

  • The respondents are trespassers on the suit kibanja except where the grave yards are located.
  • The respondents should vacate the suit kibanja within 90 days from the date of this ruling.
  • The respondents are owners of the suit kibanja where the grave yards are situated and are in charge of the said grave yard.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs since the applicant's counsel failed to comply with some of the directives of court in respect of pleadings.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Aggrieved Party
A successful party in an appeal who has not been deprived of any proprietary interest does not qualify as an aggrieved party entitled to seek review of the judgment under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require extraneous matter or drawn out scrutiny of facts and law to show its incorrectness; a requirement for clarification of court orders does not constitute such an error.
Civil Procedure — Distinction Between Erroneous Decision and Error Apparent on Record
There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision which can be corrected by a higher forum and an error apparent on the face of the record which can only be corrected by the exercise of review jurisdiction; only a manifest error is a ground for review.
Civil Procedure — Clarification of Judgment — Section 33 Judicature Act
Where a judgment requires clarification rather than review, the court may exercise its powers under section 33 of the Judicature Act to provide the necessary clarity on its orders.
Land & Property — Trespass to Land — Kibanja Sale with Reservation
Where a sale agreement states that the seller has sold the entire kibanja save for a burial ground, the seller's continued occupation of the land apart from the graveyard constitutes trespass to land as an unauthorized entry interfering with the purchaser's lawful possession.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (6)

  • Re-Nakivubo Chemists (U) Limited (1979) HCB 12
  • Muhammed Bukenya Allibai v W E Bukenya and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • FX Mubuuke v UEB (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Justine E M N Lutaaya v Sterling (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Elias Kakooza and Others v Ahaisibwe Stephen and Another (High Court Civil Revision No. 1 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mutezimana_and_Another_v_Nukiyehe_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_2878_of_2023)_[2024]_UGHCLD_75_(22_March_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.