Wakilii

Nakato v The Management Committee of Kyamulibwa Mixed Primary School (Miscellaneous Application 208 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 378 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of High Court appellate judgment under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rules 1 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, arising from HCCA No. 65 of 2018
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

Held that an application for review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act can only be made to the court that passed the decree or order sought to be reviewed. The High Court cannot review decisions of a lower court through a review application — the appropriate remedy is revision under Section 83. The applicant failed to establish error apparent on the face of record or discovery of new evidence justifying review. Challenges to findings of fact and law are grounds for appeal, not review. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

The applicant, Jenifer Nakato, was the unsuccessful appellant in HCCA No. 65 of 2018, which had arisen from Civil Suit No. 38 of 2008 at the Chief Magistrate's Court of Rakai. She lost at both trial and on appeal concerning a land dispute with the respondent school management committee. Despite filing a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal, she did not pursue it. Instead, she brought this application seeking review of both the High Court appellate judgment and the trial court decision, on grounds of error apparent on the face of record and discovery of new evidence. She argued that the respondent lacked legal personality and capacity to sue, that the trial court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction because the land was valued at UGX 500,000,000, and that two competing leases could not exist on the same land.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant is an aggrieved party entitled to seek review
  2. Whether there are grounds to grant an order of review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act
  3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the orders sought

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Jurisdiction — Court May Only Review Its Own Decrees and Orders
Under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act, an application for review can only be made to the court that passed the decree or made the order sought to be reviewed. The High Court sitting on review cannot review decisions of a lower court; the appropriate remedy for challenging a subordinate court's decision is revision under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Civil Procedure — Review — Grounds — Error Apparent on Face of Record Defined
An error apparent on the face of record means an error on a substantial point of law that stares one in the face and on which there could reasonably be no two opinions. It does not include a mere erroneous decision, wrong application of law, or failure to apply appropriate law. An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or on points where two opinions are conceivable is not an error apparent on the face of record.
Civil Procedure — Review — Distinction from Appeal — Challenges to Findings of Fact and Law
Challenges to a court's findings of fact and evaluation of evidence, or complaints that a court failed to apply the appropriate law, constitute grounds for appeal and not grounds for review. Where a court has made a conscious decision on matters in controversy and exercised its discretion in favour of the successful party, a ground for review does not arise merely because a different view could have been taken.
Civil Procedure — Review — Discovery of New Evidence — Requirements of Due Diligence
To succeed on the ground of discovery of new and important evidence, a party must show that: (a) the evidence is new; (b) it is relevant and affects the outcome of the case; (c) it is compelling and convincing; and (d) despite the exercise of due diligence, the evidence was not within the party's knowledge or could not be produced at the time of judgment. Evidence that could have been discovered with reasonable diligence, such as obtaining a valuation or ascertaining legal personality of a party, fails the test for new evidence.
Civil Procedure — Review — Availability — Review Not Available After Failed Appeal
Review is only available where no appeal has been preferred. Where a party has opted to appeal and lost the appeal, the remedy of review is not subsequently available to relitigate the same matters. Litigation must come to an end at some point, and parties cannot explore review after losing an appeal.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (9)

  • Kaloli Tabuta v Transroad Uganda Limited (HCMA No. 478 of 2019)
  • Wakera Vitalis v Sulaiman Owor (HCMA No. 44 of 2016)
  • FX Mubuuke v UEB (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2001] 2 EA 173
  • Farm Inputs Care Centre Ltd v Klein karoo Seeds Marketing (PTY) Ltd (HCMA No. 861 of 2021)
  • Busoga Growers Coop Union Ltd v Nsamba & Sons Ltd (HCMA No. 123 of 2000)
  • Kabagambe Grace v Mbabazi Resty and Another (HCMA No. 2 of 2022)
  • Jennifer Nsubuga v Michael Mukundane and Another (COACA No. 208 of 2018)
  • Namusisi Kellen v Nakamya Getrude and others (HCMA No. 312 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakato v The Management Committee of Kyamulibwa Mixed Primary School (Miscellaneous Application 208 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 378 (2 October 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.