Wakilii

Muyimbwa Frank v Fr. Ssemujju Denis (Miscellaneous Application No. 178 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 520 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of a ruling dismissing an application for leave to appeal
Decision
Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 review, holding that the applicant failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record. The court found that the matter proceeded inter partes, not exparte, as the applicant had filed submissions and participated in the proceedings. The applicant's failure to obtain the affidavit in reply was attributable to his own conduct in not providing his address and not collecting the document when called to do so. No new and material evidence was proved to the satisfaction of the court.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 150 of 2024 seeking leave to appeal against a ruling. On 18 August 2025, the High Court dismissed that application with costs to the respondent. The applicant then brought this application for review, alleging that the respondent's counsel failed to serve him with the affidavit in reply despite court directives on 15 October 2024 and 17 March 2025, and that the matter proceeded exparte against him. The applicant claimed he was not notified of hearing dates and that his submissions in rejoinder filed on 7 August 2025 were not considered in the ruling delivered on 18 August 2025. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the applicant fully participated by filing written submissions and a rejoinder, and that the applicant failed to provide his address for service or collect the affidavit in reply when called to do so.

Issues

  1. Whether the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 150 of 2024 should be reviewed and set aside on grounds of error apparent on the face of the record.
  2. Whether the failure of the respondent's counsel to serve the applicant with the affidavit in reply constituted a procedural irregularity warranting review.
  3. Whether the matter proceeded exparte against the applicant.
  4. Whether new and material evidence was discovered that was not available at the time of the original ruling.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Standard Required
For a review to succeed on the basis of an error on the face of the record, the error must be so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on the record. The error must be one apparent on the face of the record, that is, an evident error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its correction.
Civil Procedure — Exparte Proceedings — Meaning and Application — Participation by Filing Submissions
A matter cannot proceed exparte against the instituting party. Where an applicant files written submissions in support of an application and a rejoinder to the respondent's submissions, the applicant has participated in the proceedings and the matter proceeds inter partes, not exparte.
Civil Procedure — Service of Pleadings — Duty of Party to Facilitate Service
Where a party fails to provide his address for service and neglects to collect documents when called to do so, that party cannot complain of non-service. It is incumbent upon a party to deploy due diligence in procuring copies of pleadings and ensuring he is aware of court dates.
Civil Procedure — Submissions — Status as Evidence — Court's Discretion to Consider
Submissions are not evidence and the court has discretion to consider them or not. The court may consider submissions while making its decision without reproducing them in the judgment. A party's contention that submissions were not considered is devoid of merit where the court is at liberty to make reference to them or not.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (8)

  • F.X Mubuke v Uganda Electricity Board (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Combined Services Ltd v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 200 of 2009)
  • Muyodi v Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation and Another [2006] EA 243
  • Kanyabwera v Tumwebaza [2005] 2 EA 86
  • Thungabhdra industries limited vs government of A.P AIR (1964) SCR 174
  • Stop and See v Tropical African Bank (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Energo Project v Brigadier Kairye Gwanga and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 558 of 2009)
  • Samwiri v Rose Achan (1978) HCB 297

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Muyimbwa Frank v Fr. Ssemujju Denis (Miscellaneous Application No. 178 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 520 (22 April 2026)
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.