Wakilii

Ssemakula Stephen v Kibuuka Herbert (Civil Revision 15 of 2015)

High Court · [2021] UGHCLD 44 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for revision of lower court judgment under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act
Decision
Application dismissed as abuse of court process

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 application for revision was an abuse of court process founded on deceit. The applicant misrepresented the existence of Civil Suit No. 10 of 2006 when the actual proceedings were Civil Suit No. 0010 of 2003, which he had already unsuccessfully appealed. The applicant had possessed the lower court record since 2007 and his claim of being unable to obtain it was false. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed as abuse of court process

Facts

The applicant sought revision of a judgment, decree and execution in what he claimed was Civil Suit No. 10 of 2006 from Mwanga II Road Court, alleging jurisdictional errors and material irregularities. The court examined the lower court record and discovered that the actual proceedings were Civil Suit No. 0010 of 2003, not 2006. The applicant had previously filed Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2007 challenging the same decision and had applied for stay of execution in Miscellaneous Application No. 392 of 2007, which was dismissed. The lower court record had been forwarded to the High Court in June 2007 at the applicant's instance for appeal purposes. The respondent's advocates filed submissions relating to a different miscellaneous application, leaving no substantive reply on record.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has established sufficient grounds for revision of Civil Suit No. 10 of 2006

Orders

  • Application for revision dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.
  • Registrar directed to ensure investigation by Inspectorate of Courts of any illegalities on the court record.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Revision — Abuse of Process — Misrepresentation of Case Reference
An application for revision founded on deliberate misrepresentation of the case reference and facts, where the applicant has already exercised his right of appeal against the same decision, constitutes an abuse of court process and will be dismissed.
Civil Procedure — Revision — Grounds — Access to Court Record
Where an applicant claims inability to obtain the lower court record as grounds for delayed revision, but the record shows he had possession of it years earlier for appeal purposes, the application will fail for lack of merit and dishonesty.

Legislation cited (6)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssemakula_Stephen_v_Kibuuka_Herbert_(Civil_Revision_15_of_2015)_[2021]_UGHCLD_44_(31_March_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.