Wakilii

Rwamps Youth Farmers Group Ltd and Others v Limsue Global Investment Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 2307 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 355 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review and setting aside of earlier ruling dismissing leave to appear and defend, arising from summary judgment proceedings in civil suit for recovery of money
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

An application for review based on alleged error apparent on the face of the record fails where the court's original decision was based on evidence properly before it at the time. The applicant's failure to file an affidavit in rejoinder before the hearing, coupled with a two-year delay in seeking review after full knowledge of the ruling and active participation in subsequent taxation proceedings, does not constitute an error apparent on the record justifying review under the Civil Procedure Act section 82.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 884/2022 against the applicants for recovery of money. The applicants filed an application for leave to appear and defend (Miscellaneous Application No. 1570/2022). In reply, the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the affidavit was sworn by Atukunda Philemon claiming to be a director, whereas company Form 20 of 2016 showed only two other directors. The applicants did not file an affidavit in rejoinder before submissions were filed on 22nd and 23rd May 2023. On 15th June 2023, after submissions, the applicants uploaded an affidavit in rejoinder and filed an application seeking extension of time to file it. On 23rd August 2023, court dismissed the application for leave to appear and defend based on the defect in the supporting affidavit. Summary judgment was subsequently entered on 26th April 2024. Execution proceedings followed, and the respondent obtained orders to lift the corporate veil in November 2024. A warrant of arrest was issued on 24th September 2025. In 2025, nearly two years after the ruling, the applicants filed this application for review, claiming the court's reliance on outdated company records constituted an error apparent on the face of the record.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses grounds to warrant a review and setting aside of the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 1570/2022.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Standard of Proof
For an error to constitute a ground for review, it must be apparent on the face of the record, meaning an evident error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness and must be so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on record.
Review — Conclusions Based on Evidence — Not Reviewable
Conclusions arrived at on appreciation of evidence cannot be classified as errors apparent on the face of the record, and in a review it is not open to the court to reappraise the evidence and reach a different conclusion even if that is possible.
Review — Affidavit in Rejoinder — Timing and Effect
Where a court bases its decision on evidence properly before it at the time of the hearing and the applicant failed to file an affidavit in rejoinder before submissions or obtain an extension of time to do so, the court's reliance on the available evidence does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.
Review — Delay — Effect on Application
A delay of nearly two years in filing an application for review after the applicant had full knowledge of the ruling and actively participated in subsequent taxation proceedings, without satisfactory explanation for the prolonged inaction, militates against the grant of review.
Review — Purpose and Limitations — Remedying Own Failings
Review proceedings are not designed for the purpose of allowing parties to remedy their own failings or oversights during trial, and there is an expectation that litigating parties place the whole of their case before the court at the time of the initial hearing.
Written Submissions — Requirement to File on Time
Filing of written submissions is a legal requirement after an order has been given, and failure to file submissions as scheduled by the court is like refusing to speak or failure to make oral submissions when the matter is coming for hearing.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (6)

  • Susan Theophili Mbilinyi & Mrs Susan Mbilinyi v Ivanune Jeru Mbilinyi (Civil Revision No. 03 of 2023)
  • FX Mubuuke v UEB (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2001] 2 EA 173
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Civil Appeal No. 061 of 2014)
  • Surgipharm (U) Ltd v Uganda Investment Authority & Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 65 of 2021)
  • Matovu Lawrence and Another v United Methodist Church of Uganda (Miscellaneous Applications No. 461 and 468 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rwamps Youth Farmers Group Ltd and Others v Limsue Global Investment Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 2307 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 355 (2 July 2026)
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.