Wakilii

Nandhubu v Isabirye (REVISON CAUSE NO. 44 OF 2017)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 111 · 2018 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for revision under Sections 34 and 98 CPA seeking order directing respondent to vacate land allegedly taken in excess of decree
Decision
Application dismissed for failure to prove excessive execution

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 dismissed. The applicant failed to establish that the respondent took possession of land in excess of the decree. Without a return of execution or particulars showing the size of land wrongfully taken, the court could not determine whether there was excessive execution or its extent.

Outcome

Application dismissed for failure to prove excessive execution

Facts

The applicant sought an order directing the respondent to vacate land allegedly taken in excess of what was decreed. The respondent had obtained judgment from the Bugiri District Land Tribunal for land measuring 80 by 105 meters. That judgment was upheld on appeal to the High Court in Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2004. An execution order dated 11 July 2006 authorised the bailiff to evict the applicant and hand over vacant possession to the respondent. The applicant alleged that the respondent took possession of land exceeding the 80 by 105 meters awarded by decree. The respondent failed to respond to the application, and the matter proceeded exparte.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent obtained through execution land beyond what he was entitled to by Court Order?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Execution — Excessive Execution — Burden of Proof
A party alleging excessive execution must provide particulars of the size of land wrongfully taken and a return of execution filed by the bailiff under Order 22 rule 22(1) CPR to establish both the fact and extent of excessive execution.
Civil Procedure — Revision — Section 34 CPA — Scope of Powers
Under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act, the High Court has powers to investigate all questions arising between parties relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree.

Legislation cited (5)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nandhubu v Isabirye (REVISON CAUSE NO. 44 OF 2017) [2018] UGHCCD 111 (25 October 2018)
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.