Wakilii

Rwera Patrick v Abdul Ddumba and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1671 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 125 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review and setting aside of judgment in Civil Suit No. 0058 of 2015 and to be added as a party to that suit
Decision
Application for review dismissed as incompetent due to pending appeals on common grounds

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 High Court dismissed the application for review of a judgment in Civil Suit No. 0058 of 2015. The court held that where appeals from the same judgment are pending before the Court of Appeal and the grounds of the review application are common to the grounds of appeal, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the review application under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The exception in Order 46 Rule 1(2) permitting review notwithstanding a pending appeal applies only where the grounds are not common to both the applicant and the appellant.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed as incompetent due to pending appeals on common grounds

Facts

The applicant, Rwera Patrick, claimed to have purchased land comprised in Kyadondo Block 265 Plot 8410 at Bunamwaya from Kawere William in January 2020 and obtained a certificate of title. He took possession and remained on the land for five years. On 18 November 2024, the High Court delivered judgment in Civil Suit No. 0058 of 2015 declaring that the same land belonged to the 1st respondent, Abdul Ddumba. The applicant was not a party to that suit. The 1st respondent extracted a decree and obtained a special certificate of title, creating two competing titles to the same land. The applicant then brought this application seeking to review and set aside the judgment in Civil Suit No. 0058 of 2015 and to be added as a party to that suit. At the time of the application, two appeals from the judgment in Civil Suit No. 0058 of 2015 were pending before the Court of Appeal, filed by other defendants in that suit, raising grounds relating to ownership of the suit property.

Issues

  1. Whether the judgment entered in Civil Suit No. 0058 of 2015 should be reviewed and set aside.
  2. Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a review application when appeals from the same judgment are pending before the Court of Appeal.
  3. Whether the applicant qualifies as an aggrieved person entitled to seek review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of Judgment — Jurisdiction — Pending Appeal on Common Grounds
Where appeals from a judgment are pending before the Court of Appeal and the grounds of a review application are common to the grounds of appeal, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the review application under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, as entertaining the review would create a likelihood of conflicting decisions between the trial court and the appellate court.
Review of Judgment — Exception for Non-Appealing Party — Scope of Order 46 Rule 1(2)
The exception in Order 46 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which permits a party to apply for review notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party, is limited and does not apply where the ground of appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or where the applicant as respondent can present to the appellate court the case on which he applies for review.
Review of Judgment — Subject Matter Under Appeal — Restriction on Review Court
A review application should not be entertained in respect of matters which would be decided under appeal, as the subject matter of the decree sought to be reviewed must not be within the jurisdiction of the appellate court to interfere, to avoid conflict of decisions or jurisdiction between the two courts.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (5)

  • Mohamed Alibahai v W.E Bukenya & DAPCB (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Jenifer Nakato v The Managing Committee of Kyalimulibwa Mixed Primary School (Miscellaneous Application No. 0208 of 2022)
  • B. K Wava Property Consultants Ltd v Hope Rwaguma (Miscellaneous Application No. 1432 of 2019)
  • Daj Communications Ltd v David Kihika (Miscellaneous Application No. 0018 of 2023)
  • Behari Lal and another versus M.M Gobardhan Lal and others on 29the April, 1948, AIR 1948 ALL 353

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rwera_Patrick_v_Abdul_Ddumba_and_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._1671_of_2025)_[2026]_UGHCLD_125_(16_March_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.