Wakilii

Nassuna v Kamoga matovu ans 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 476 of 2012)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 121 · 2022 Application Partly Allowed — Execution Stayed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment in Civil Suit No. 378 of 2013 and stay of execution, arising from alleged failure to serve applicant as interested party
Decision
Execution of judgment in Civil Suit No. 378 of 2013 stayed pending determination of Civil Suit No. 0017 of 2022

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 court declined to review its earlier judgment in Civil Suit No. 378 of 2013 on grounds that a pending suit (Civil Suit No. 0017 of 2022) would conclusively determine the applicant's rights in the disputed land. The court instead stayed execution of the judgment and orders in Civil Suit No. 378 of 2013 pending determination of the applicant's interest in Civil Suit No. 0017 of 2022.

Outcome

Execution of judgment in Civil Suit No. 378 of 2013 stayed pending determination of Civil Suit No. 0017 of 2022

Facts

The applicant claimed she purchased a kibanja on land comprised in LRV 2220 Folio 1 Plot 73 Kome Drive Luzira from the 1st respondent in 2009 and had been in occupation since then. The 1st respondent had previously sued the 2nd and 3rd respondents (the registered proprietors) in Civil Suit No. 378 of 2013 claiming to be a bonafide occupant. That suit was dismissed on 2 March 2022 with orders for the 1st respondent's eviction within 90 days. The applicant was not made a party to that suit. She brought this application seeking review of the judgment on grounds that it affected her rights as she was the actual occupant, and sought to be added as a party. The 2nd respondent opposed, stating the applicant's alleged kibanja was on a different location (Kome Crescent, not Kome Drive) and that there was collusion between the applicant and 1st respondent. The applicant had also filed Civil Suit No. 0017 of 2022 against all three respondents to secure her occupancy.

Issues

  1. Whether the application meets the criteria for review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The execution of the judgment and orders in Civil Suit No. 378 of 2013: Moses Kamoga Matovu v Jespal Singh Birdi & Anor are stayed pending the determination of the applicant's interest in the suit land under Civil Suit No. 0017 of 2022.
  • Miscellaneous Application No. 475 of 2022 is disposed of by the above order.
  • Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the pending suit: Civil Suit No. 0017 of 2022.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Grounds for Review — Aggrieved Person
A person considers himself aggrieved if he has suffered a legal grievance, which occurs when the judgment given is against him or affects his interest.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Uncontroverted Facts
Where facts are sworn to in an affidavit and they are not denied by the opposite party, the presumption is that they are accepted.
Civil Procedure — Natural Justice — Right to be Heard
Where an order affecting a person's rights is made, the court is enjoined to apply rules of fairness and not to condemn a person unheard.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Utility of Review Where Pending Suit Exists
A review of a court's decision would not serve any useful purpose where there is already a pending suit which will conclusively determine the applicant's rights in the same subject matter.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (10)

  • Re Nakibubo Chemist (U) Ltd (1977) HCB 12
  • Yusufali v Nakivubo (1971) EA 704
  • In Re Mohamed, Hussein v Griffiths Nakibubo Chemists (U) Ltd (1977) HCB 12
  • Ladak Abdulla Isingoma Kakilza and others (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1995)
  • Mohamed Alibhai v W.E Bukenya Mukasa & Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Samuel Mussa v Rose Achen (1978) HCB 297
  • Makerere University v St. Mark Education Institute Ltd. & Others [1994] KALR 26
  • Eridadi Ahimbisibwe v World Food Programme & Others [1994] KALR 32
  • Kaigesubula Fenekoli/Isi v Luwero District Land Board & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 367 of 2011)
  • Mushabe Apollo v Mutumba Ismael & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 400 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nassuna_v_Kamoga_matovu_ans_2_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._476_of_2012)_[2022]_UGHCLD_121_(13_June_2022)
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.