Wakilii

Rwehuta 9 Others v Tumwijukye 13 Others (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO 152 OF 2020)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 153 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of interlocutory ruling arising from compensation proceedings for unlawful evictions
Decision
Application dismissed on grounds that no error apparent on the face of the record was established and that the application was filed before a different judge without justification contrary to Order 46 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules

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 must be based on mistake or error apparent on the face of the record requiring no elaborate argument to establish. Disagreement with a court's reasoning or decision does not constitute grounds for review. The proper remedy for alleged misapprehension of law is appeal. Where the applicants challenge a judge's exercise of discretion in making administrative orders to prevent embezzlement of compensation funds, and no self-evident error is shown, the review application must be dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed on grounds that no error apparent on the face of the record was established and that the application was filed before a different judge without justification contrary to Order 46 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Facts

The applicants are 10 of 1,230 claimants who obtained judgment for compensation in HCCS No. 207 of 1993 and HCMA No. 192 of 2000 for unlawful eviction from Mpokya forest reserve. Each claimant was awarded UGX 12,000,000 with interest. In March 2019, in HCMA No. 555 of 2018 (a separate application to which the applicants were not parties), the court ordered that suit money be paid through M/s Mushabe, Munungu & Co. Advocates and that a verification process be conducted to determine the original claimants and their entitlements. The applicants alleged that they had never authorized the 11th–14th respondents (who held powers of attorney and instructed the said law firm) to represent them, and that the court's orders in HCMA No. 555 of 2018 altered the original decree and diminished their entitlements without affording them a hearing. The application was filed more than 13 months after the ruling, after the trial judge had been transferred.

Issues

  1. Whether the ruling and orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 555 of 2018 should be reviewed and set aside.
  2. Whether the powers of attorney held by the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th respondents in respect of HCCS No. 207 of 1993 and HCMA No. 192 of 2000 are illegal, null and void.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 11th–14th respondents only.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Grounds for Review — Mistake or Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
Review of a judgment or order may be granted where there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, which must be self-evident and require no elaborate argument or examination to establish.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Distinction Between Review and Appeal
Disagreement with a court's reasoning or decision, or alleged misapprehension of law or evidence, does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record and is properly the subject of appeal, not review.
Civil Procedure — Review Applications — Same Judge Rule — Order 46 rule 4
Under Order 46 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a review application must be heard by the same judge who passed the decree or order under review, unless that judge is unavailable due to absence, death, or other unavoidable cause. Filing a review application before a different judge without justification amounts to improper circumvention of this rule.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Court Process — Timing and Purpose of Review Applications
Filing a review application after prolonged delay and after the original judge has been transferred, without justification and in circumstances suggesting an attempt to have another judge reconsider the matter, may constitute an abuse of court process and will be dismissed.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Evergreen Fields Uganda Ltd v Bernard Tungwako & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 0003 of 2019)
  • Re-Nakivubo Chemist (U) Ltd (1974) HCB 12
  • MK Financiers Limited v Shah & Co Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1056)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2004)
  • Caneland Ltd & Others vs Delphis Bank Ltd Civil Application No. 344 of 1999 (Kenya Court of Appeal)
  • Benkay Nigeria Limited vs Cadbury Nigeria Limited No. 29 of 2006 (Supreme Court of Nigeria)
  • Seraki vs Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (pt 264) 156 at 188

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rwehuta 9 Others v Tumwijukye 13 Others (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO 152 OF 2020) 2020 UGHCCD 153 (10 July 2020)
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.