Wakilii

Nabasinga v Nakintu & Another (Revision Cause 20 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 387 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment in Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2016, arising from Civil Suit No. 121 of 2015
Decision
Application for review dismissed; earlier judgment in Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2016 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

Held that a granddaughter of a deceased person whose estate was the subject of earlier proceedings is an aggrieved person under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act because she is a lineal descendant with an interest in the estate. However, review was refused because the applicant's grounds challenged the merits of factual findings and legal conclusions rather than demonstrating an error apparent on the face of the record. A review is not a mechanism to reconsider evidence or re-argue issues of fact and law already decided.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; earlier judgment in Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2016 stands

Facts

The respondents obtained judgment in Civil Suit No. 121 of 2015 declaring them lawful owners of land that had belonged to their late father Byansi Benedicto. The defendant Senabulya Joseph appealed to the High Court but the appeal was dismissed in Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2016. The trial and appellate courts found that upon Byansi's death the matrimonial property devolved to his widow Baseka, and upon her death it devolved to the respondents as her children. The applicant, a granddaughter of the late Byansi (daughter of Matiya Lubowa, Byansi's son), sought review claiming the judgment erroneously vested ownership in the respondents alone while disregarding other beneficiaries of Byansi's estate. The respondents opposed, contending the applicant was a stranger to the earlier proceedings and had no locus. After the matter came up for hearing and evidence closed, both parties filed supplementary affidavits without seeking leave.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant is an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act
  2. Whether the application meets the criteria for review

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Locus Standi — Aggrieved Person
A person is an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act if the decree or order deprives that person of property or otherwise operates against their interests, even if they were not a party to the original proceedings. A lineal descendant (including a grandchild) of a deceased person whose estate is the subject of court proceedings has a sufficient interest to be considered an aggrieved person where the court's orders affect their rights as a beneficiary.
Succession & Estates — Lineal Descendants — Right to Apply for Review
A grandchild of a deceased person is a lineal descendant within the meaning of section 27 of the Succession Act. Where a court determines ownership of property that formed part of a deceased's estate, a grandchild has an interest as a beneficiary and is entitled to apply for review if the orders interfere with that interest.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Error Apparent on Face of Record
For a review to succeed on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record, the error must be so manifest, clear, and self-evident that no court would permit it to remain. An error is not apparent on the face of the record if it requires examination of evidence or arguments to establish. A challenge to the court's findings of fact or application of law does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Scope and Purpose
A review should not seek to challenge the merits of a decision but rather irregularities in the process towards the decision. Where a court has made a conscious decision on contested matters and exercised its discretion after considering the evidence and law, a ground for review does not arise merely because a party disagrees with the findings. Review is not a mechanism to reconsider evidence or re-argue issues already decided.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Filing of Supplementary Affidavits After Hearing Commences
In an application to be determined on affidavits, all affidavits and documents should be filed and served before the date fixed for hearing. If a party seeks to file supplementary affidavits after the matter has come up for hearing, that party must obtain leave of court and notify the opposite party. Filing supplementary affidavits without leave after hearing has commenced amounts to trial by ambush and contravenes the principles of natural justice. Such affidavits are liable to be expunged.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (16)

  • Ladak Adulla Mohamed Hussein v Griffs Isingoma and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1995)
  • Paul Muhimbura and Another v Patrick Lwanga and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 2018 of 2019)
  • Yusuf v Nokrach (1971) EA 104
  • Mohamed Albhai v Bukenya Mukasa and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Surgipharm (U) Ltd v Uganda Investment Authority and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 65 of 2021)
  • Namaasa Alred v Mafabi Muhammed (High Court Election Petition No. 20 of 2021)
  • Mohammed Allibhai v W.E. Bukenya and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd (1979) HCB 12
  • Kawdu v Bever Ginning Co. Ltd, Akot and Others (1929) AIR Nagpur 185
  • Adonia v Mutekanga [1970] EA 429
  • Prince Kalemera and Another v Commissioner Land Registration and 3 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 535 of 2017)
  • Jumba Ronald and Another v Suzan Namuddu and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 849 of 2018)
  • FX Mubuuke v UEB (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Batuk K. Vyas v Surat Municipality (1953) AIR Bom 133
  • Kaloli v Nduga (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 497 of 2014)
  • Farm Inputs Care Centre Ltd v Klein Karoo Seeds Marketing (PTY) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 861 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nabasinga v Nakintu & Another (Revision Cause 20 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 387 (7 September 2023)
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.