Wakilii

Samuel Basimakyi Muhima v Milly Nyakahuma Muhima (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1234 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of valuation report arising from consent judgment in divorce proceedings
Decision
Application dismissed; valuation report upheld as valid and binding

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

Held that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record to justify review of a government valuer's report assessing matrimonial property at UGX 493,400,000. Valuation is not an exact science but an opinion based on professional judgment. A mere difference in opinion as to value does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. The applicant did not show that the valuer disregarded fundamental valuation principles or relied on an erroneous basis. Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Application dismissed; valuation report upheld as valid and binding

Facts

The parties divorced by consent judgment on 23 November 2023, agreeing that the respondent would receive 60% and the applicant 40% of the matrimonial property at Kabulengwa, Nansana Municipality, Wakiso District. They agreed to appoint a government valuer to conduct a joint valuation. The valuation report was issued on 17 July 2024, assessing the property at UGX 493,400,000. The applicant was present during the inspection and raised no objections at the time. The applicant subsequently brought this application seeking review of the valuation report, claiming it was excessive and that the current market value was between UGX 200,000,000 and UGX 250,000,000. The applicant alleged the valuer never requested the architectural plan of the house. The respondent opposed the application, arguing the applicant had no expertise in valuation, produced no counter-report, and failed to challenge the valuer's competence or identify any manifest error.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application meets the grounds for review of the valuation report dated 17th July 2024.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed.
  • Valuation report dated 17th July 2024 shall stand as the valid and binding valuation of the matrimonial property between the parties.
  • Costs of the Application awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Locus Standi — Person Aggrieved
A person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules is not merely a person disappointed by a benefit not received, but a person who has suffered a legal grievance, against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongly deprived him of something or wrongly affected his title. Where a valuation report directly affects a party's pecuniary rights and obligations under a consent judgment, that party is a person aggrieved with locus standi to apply for review.
Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and incapable of two interpretations, one that stares at the court from the record without the need for elaborate reasoning. A mistake or error on the face of the record must be one on which there cannot be two opinions. An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Review — Valuation Reports — Standard of Challenge
Valuation is not an exact science but an art involving professional judgment that considers numerous variables. A mere difference in opinion as to value does not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. To dislodge a valuation, it must be shown that the valuer's assumptions are such as could never have been made, and that they are so patently erroneous that the end result itself could not but be wrong, unfair and unreasonable. Manifest errors are obvious oversights or blunders capable of affecting the determination and admitting of no difference of opinion.
Civil Procedure — Review — Functus Officio — Exception for Review Applications
While the functus officio rule bars a court from re-opening or re-litigating a matter once it has finally determined it on the merits, Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules expressly preserve the jurisdiction of the court to entertain an application for review of its own orders or decrees under specific and limited circumstances. A review is not an appeal or a re-hearing but a procedural mechanism to enable the same court to correct errors apparent on the face of the record or to consider new and important evidence. The jurisdiction to review is an exception to the functus officio rule.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Contempt of Court — Discretion to Hear Contemnor
While the principle that a contemnor should not be heard until they have purged themselves of contempt is well established, it is not absolute. Courts retain discretion to hear a contemnor where the ends of justice so require, particularly where the matter before court may itself assist in resolving or regularizing the contempt, or where denial of audience would occasion greater injustice. Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the court to exercise its discretion in the interests of justice.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (34)

  • Nakiryowa Majorie Kiddu and Another v Maurie S. Serugo Kiddu and Another (Civil Suit No. 587 of 2015)
  • Col (RTD) Dr Kiiza Besigye v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 33 of 2011)
  • Aya Investments (U) Limited v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa (Miscellaneous Application No. 2908 of 2023)
  • Hadkinson v. Hadkinson [1952] 2 ALL E.R 567; [1952] P. 285
  • Wildlife Lodges Ltd v. County Council of Narok and another [2005] EA 344
  • Comform Uganda Limited v Megha Industries (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1084 of 2014)
  • FX Mubukuke v Uganda Electricity Board (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Lweza Clays and Another v Tropical Bank and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2018)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs. West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Goodman Agencies Ltd v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2008)
  • Magadeline Makinta v Fostina Nkwe (Court of Appeal No. 26 of 2001)
  • Odneste Monanyana v The State (Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2001)
  • Amdhan Khan v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1027 of 2015)
  • Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd (1971) HCB 12
  • Okeny v Obol (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 63 of 2012)
  • Miter Investment Ltd v East African Portland Cement Company Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 534 of 2012)
  • Exparte Side Botham in re Side Botham (1880) 4 Ch. D 458,456
  • Mohamed Alibhai v E.E. Bukenya Mukasa (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Al-Shafi Investment Group LLC v Ahmed Darwish and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 901 of 2017)
  • Attorney General and Others v Boniface Byanyima (Miscellaneous Application No. 1789 of 2000)
  • Levi Uganda Transportation Company [1995] HCB 340
  • Kishor Kumar Dhanji V Ndeffo Limited Civil Case No.170 of 2009
  • Nyamogo and Nyamogo Advocates V Kogo [2001] 1 EA 173
  • Igga Godfrey and Others v The Registered Trustees of Pentecostal Assemblies of God and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2016)
  • National Bank of Kenya V Ndungu Njau Civil Appeal No.211 of 1996
  • Ecobank (U) Limited v Emco Works Limited and Others (Civil Suit No. 860 of 2018)
  • Veba Oil Supply and Trading Gmbh v. Petrotrade Inc. [2001] EWCA Civ 1832; [2002] 1 All ER 703
  • G.L. Sultania and Ors. v. The Securities and Exchange Board of India and others (2007) 5 SCC 133
  • Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 v. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 433 ITR 82; 199 DTR 345; 320 CTR 381 (Delhi) (HC)
  • Zubaida v. Hargreaves [1995] 1 EGLR 127 at 128
  • Singer & Friedlander Ltd v. John D Wood & Co [1977] 2 EGLR 84 at 85-86
  • Baxter v. F W Gapp & co Ltd [1938] 4 All ER 457 at 459
  • Craneheath Securities v. York Montague Ltd [1996] 1 EGLR 130 at 132
  • MGICA (1992) Ltd. v. Kenny & Good Pty Ltd. (1996) 140ALR 313 at 335

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Samuel Basimakyi Muhima v Milly Nyakahuma Muhima (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 1234 (3 November 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.