Wakilii

Ronald Malcom Kasozi and Sitreck Group Ltd v Arthur Luyombo and Others (Miscellaneous Application 2082 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 397 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to be added as parties to a pending revision application arising from a concluded civil suit in the Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the 3rd 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 court dismissed an application to add parties to a pending revision application. Held that Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which governs addition of parties, applies to matters pending trial and not to matters on appeal or revision. Where applicants were not parties to the original suit in the lower court and the matter has concluded and is now at revision stage, they cannot be added as parties to the revision proceedings.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the 3rd Respondent

Facts

The applicants are registered proprietors of land at Bunamwaya. The trial Magistrate in Civil Suit No. 13 of 2020 (Arthur Luyombo v Kyeyune Hannington and Mugerwa Charles) granted an access road through the applicants' land without their participation in those proceedings. The 1st Respondent subsequently filed Revision Application No. 1019 of 2024 seeking to set aside the trial Magistrate's orders. The applicants, who were not parties to the original suit or the revision application, sought to be added as parties to the revision proceedings, arguing that the orders granting the access road affected their land and were made without their consent. The 3rd Respondent opposed, contending that the applicants were strangers to the original proceedings and could not seek to join a revision of a matter to which they were not parties.

Issues

  1. Whether there is sufficient reason for addition of the applicants as parties to Civil Revision Application No. 1019 of 2024?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 3rd Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Addition of Parties — Scope of Order 1 Rule 10(2) — Application to Revision Proceedings
Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which governs the addition of parties to a suit, applies to matters pending trial and not to matters that are on appeal or revision before the High Court.
Civil Procedure — Addition of Parties — Requirements — Necessity to Show Legal Effect on Interest
In applications to add parties, it is necessary to show either that the orders sought would legally affect the interest of that party and that it is desirable to have that person joined to avoid multiplicity of suits, or that the defendant could not effectually set up a desired defence unless that person was joined, or that an order would be made that would bind that other person.
Civil Procedure — Revision — Standing — Parties to Original Proceedings
Where applicants were not parties to the original suit in the lower court and that matter has concluded and is now at revision stage, they cannot be added as parties to the revision proceedings as they are strangers to the matter under revision.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • Yahaya Kariisa v Attorney General and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 07 of 1994)
  • Okama David v Ocaya Robert (Civil Revision Cause No. 05 of 2022)
  • Salim Jamal and Others v Uganda Oxygen Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 064 of 1995)
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd [1999] 1 EA 55

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ronald_Malcom_Kasozi_and_Sitreck_Group_Ltd_v_Arthur_Luyombo_and_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_2082_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_397_(8_December_2025)
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.