Wakilii

Mutezimana James and Nyirabaganda Josephine v Diyodini Nukiyehe and Beatrice Fulaha (Miscellaneous Application No. 2878 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 359 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment delivered in Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2021, itself arising from Civil Suit No. 51 of 2016 in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Kasangati
Decision
Application for review dismissed but clarification provided under Section 33 of the Judicature Act; respondents ordered to vacate suit kibanja within 90 days save for grave yards

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

Application for review dismissed. The applicants, who were successful parties in the underlying appeal, did not qualify as aggrieved parties under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act. The appeal judgment clearly resolved that the respondents had sold their entire kibanja interest save for the burial grounds, and that their continued occupation amounted to trespass. What the applicants sought was clarification, not correction of an error apparent on the face of the record. Court exercised its powers under Section 33 of the Judicature Act to provide the requested clarification and declared the respondents trespassers except where the grave yards are located, ordering them to vacate within 90 days.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed but clarification provided under Section 33 of the Judicature Act; respondents ordered to vacate suit kibanja within 90 days save for grave yards

Facts

The applicants purchased a kibanja from the respondents in 2015 for consideration of UGX 1,800,000 plus a balance of UGX 200,000. The sale agreement dated 22 April 2015 stated that the respondents sold their entire plot except for a burial ground. The applicants obtained registered title to the land. Dispute arose as respondents claimed they only sold part of the kibanja and retained the part housing their home, grave yard, and garden. The Chief Magistrate's Court ruled in favour of the respondents. On appeal (Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2021), the High Court Land Division reversed this decision on 25 August 2023, finding that the sale agreement clearly indicated the respondents sold the entire kibanja save for the burial grounds. The applicants then brought this application seeking review of the appeal judgment, claiming it did not make clear declarations on trespass and eviction.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants are aggrieved parties entitled to seek review of a judgment delivered in their favour.
  2. Whether the appeal judgment contained an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
  3. Whether the appeal judgment required clarification as to 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 — Successful Party Not Entitled to Review
A successful party who has not been deprived of their interest cannot qualify as an aggrieved party entitled to seek review of a judgment delivered in their favour under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Distinction from Erroneous Decision
There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. An error apparent on the face of the record must be a self-evident irregularity that does not require extraneous matter to show its incorrectness and must be so manifest that no court would permit it to remain on record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by a higher forum; an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercise of review jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure — Review versus Clarification — Section 33 of Judicature Act
Where a party seeks clarification of court orders rather than correction of an error apparent on the face of the record, the proper remedy is a formal application for clarification under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act or the court may exercise its powers under Section 33 of the Judicature Act to provide clarity, rather than proceeding by way of review.
Land & Property — Trespass to Land — Kibanja Sale — Continued Occupation After Sale
Where kibanja holders sell their entire kibanja interest to a purchaser save for a specified portion such as a burial ground, their continued occupation and utilization of the sold portion amounts to trespass, being an unauthorized entry upon and interference with another person's lawful possession of the land.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (6)

  • Re-Nakivubo Chemists (U) Limited (1979) HCB 12
  • Muhammed Bukenya Allibai v W E Bukenya & Anor (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 Engineering Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Elias Kakooza & Ors v Ahaisibwe Stephen & Anor (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_James_and_Nyirabaganda_Josephine_v_Diyodini_Nukiyehe_and_Beatrice_Fulaha_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._2878_of_2023)_[2024]_UGHCLD_359_(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.