Wakilii

S.L.P Engineering and Contractors Limited v Nkambwe and Another (Civil Review 11 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCLD 477 · 2021 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of a High Court ruling in Miscellaneous Cause No. 53 of 2018 which cancelled the applicant's lease without hearing the applicant
Decision
Earlier ruling set aside; applicant's lease to be reinstated; matter to be heard inter-parties with applicant as a party

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 granted the application for review, holding that the applicant's lease had been cancelled without affording the applicant a right to be heard, which violated the constitutional right to fair hearing under Article 44(c). The court found that the applicant was an aggrieved party with sufficient reason for review, as it held a subsisting lease that was cancelled without being given a chance to defend its rights. The court set aside the earlier ruling and directed reinstatement of the lease, ordering that the matter be heard inter-parties with the applicant as a party.

Outcome

Earlier ruling set aside; applicant's lease to be reinstated; matter to be heard inter-parties with applicant as a party

Facts

The applicant company held a 99-year lease over land comprised in Kyadondo Block 65 Plot 245 at Migadde, registered on 7 September 1999. In Miscellaneous Cause No. 53 of 2018, the 1st respondent (the lessor) applied to court to cancel the applicant's lease on grounds of illegalities and abandonment. The court granted the application and ordered cancellation of the lease without the applicant being made a party or given an opportunity to be heard. The applicant subsequently filed this review application, arguing that it was denied the right to be heard and that there was an error apparent on the face of the record. The 1st respondent opposed the application, contending that the applicant was not a party to the earlier proceedings and therefore did not need to be served, and that the applicant had abandoned the land.

Issues

  1. Whether this application meets the conditions for review under the law
  2. What are the remedies available to the parties

Orders

  • The ruling and orders of this Honourable court in Miscellaneous Cause No. 53 of 2018; Nkambwe Christopher vs Commissioner Land Registration which was delivered on 8th October, 2019 are hereby set aside.
  • The Commissioner Land Registration is directed to reinstate the applicant's lease on the 1st respondent's said title.
  • Miscellaneous Cause No. 53/2018 be heard inter-parties with the applicant as a party.
  • Costs of the application abide the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Conditions for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An application for review may be granted where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, which refers to an evident error that does not require extraneous matter to show its incorrectness and is so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on record.
Civil Procedure — Right to Be Heard — Natural Justice — Cancellation of Property Rights
Where a court order affects a party's property rights, that party must be given an opportunity to be heard before the order is made, even if that party was not originally a party to the proceedings. Failure to afford such a hearing violates the constitutional right to fair hearing under Article 44(c) of the Constitution.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Authority to Swear on Behalf of Company
A director and company secretary of a company has ostensible authority to swear an affidavit on behalf of the company without requiring a separate deed of authorization, as the law presumes certain categories of employees have authority to act for the company. However, other persons claiming to be authorized must provide written evidence of such authority.
Land & Property — Leases — Cancellation — Procedural Requirements
A lessee whose lease is sought to be cancelled must be made a party to proceedings seeking such cancellation and given an opportunity to defend or relinquish such rights, particularly where the lessee has paid for the lease and claims it is subsisting.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (7)

  • Outa v Uganda Transport Company [1975] HCB 340
  • Al-Shafi Investment Group LLC v Ahmed Darwish Dapher and Darwish Al Marar (Miscellaneous Application No. 901 of 2017)
  • Owori Media and Another v Ecobank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1105 of 2014)
  • Lena Nakalema Binaisa and 3 Others v Mucunguzi Myers (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0460 of 2013)
  • Makerere University v St. Mark Education Institute and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 378 of 1993)
  • Imran Ahmed v Gapco (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 492 of 2013)
  • Mohammed Allibhia v Bukenya and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

S.L.P_Engineering_and_Contractors_Limited_v_Nkambwe_and_Another_(Civil_Review_11_of_2020)_[2021]_UGHCLD_477_(9_February_2021)
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.