Wakilii

Ssenkomi Herman Baale and Others v Ssemakula Moses (Miscellaneous Application No.1922 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 202 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of orders made in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 21 of 2023, arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 2164 of 2022, arising from Civil Suit No. 1094 of 2022
Decision
Application for review dismissed; applicants to bear costs jointly and severally

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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. The court held that the applicants, as tenants on the suit land, were not aggrieved parties within the meaning of the law because the orders requiring the registered proprietor to collect rent and manage the property did not wrongfully deprive them of any legal right. The court further held that the applicants failed to establish any of the recognised grounds for review: no error apparent on the face of the record, no discovery of new and important evidence, and no other sufficient reason analogous to the statutory grounds. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; applicants to bear costs jointly and severally

Facts

The applicants are occupants on land comprised in Kibuga LRV 4359, Folio 17 Block 7 Plot 130 at Kibuye. The respondent is the registered proprietor of the lease interest in the suit property. The beneficiaries of the estate of the late Erias Bisegerwa filed Civil Suit No. 1094 of 2022 seeking recovery of the land. They also filed Miscellaneous Application No. 2164 of 2022 for a temporary injunction, which was granted. The respondent appealed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 21 of 2023, and the appeal was dismissed, but the court ordered that the respondent would continue collecting rent from lockup shops other than those occupied by certain parties, and that he should access the premises and manage the tenants. The respondent extracted this order and circulated it to occupants demanding rent. The applicants, who claim to have occupied the land since 1997 to 2014 and never paid rent to the respondent, brought this application seeking review of the orders on grounds that they altered the status quo and condemned them unheard. The respondent opposed, contending that the applicants are his tenants and that he had been collecting rent prior to the filing of the main suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants are aggrieved parties within the meaning of the law.
  2. Whether the application reveals sufficient grounds for review of the court orders in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 21 of 2023.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the ruling and orders of Her Lordship Hon Lady Justice Elizabeth Jane Alividza in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 21 of 2023 dated 5th June 2024 is hereby dismissed.
  • Costs of this suit to be borne by the Applicants jointly and severally.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Court Orders — Aggrieved Person — Standing to Apply
A tenant cannot be considered an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act where the court order in question requires the registered proprietor of land to collect rent from tenants and manage the property, as such an order does not wrongfully deprive the tenant of any legal right or wrongfully affect the tenant's title.
Civil Procedure — Review of Court Orders — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error cannot be said to be apparent on the face of the record if it is not manifest or self-evident and requires argument or consideration of materials not part of the original court record to establish it. Where determining whether a court order altered the status quo requires argument and evidence not on the face of the record, there is no error apparent on the face of the record justifying review.
Civil Procedure — Review of Court Orders — Grounds for Review — Discovery of New Evidence
For an application for review to succeed on the ground of discovery of new and important evidence, the applicant must demonstrate that the evidence could not have been produced at the time the decree was passed or order made after the exercise of due diligence. Allegations that were already raised and considered by the trial court in the original proceedings do not constitute new evidence warranting review.
Civil Procedure — Review of Court Orders — Grounds for Review — Any Other Sufficient Reason
The expression 'any other sufficient reason' in Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules means a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to the discovery of new and important evidence or a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Grounds that are not analogous to these specified grounds do not constitute sufficient reason for review.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Uncontroverted Facts — Presumption of Admission
Where certain facts are sworn to in an affidavit and the opposing party does not deny or rebut them by affidavit in rejoinder, those facts are presumed to have been accepted and admitted.
Civil Procedure — Approbation and Reprobation — Inconsistent Positions
A party cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Where a party files a suit claiming to be a tenant and seeking protection of tenancy rights, that party cannot subsequently claim in another application that they are not a tenant on the same property. Such inconsistent positions contravene the principle against approbation and reprobation.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (15)

  • Mohamed Allibhai v W.E Bukenya Mukasa and Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Humphrey Nzeyi v Bank of Uganda and Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 01 of 2013)
  • Isreal Kabwa v Martin Banoba Musiga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1995)
  • Oloo Paul v Dr Lokii John Baptist & Another (Election Petition 006 of 2021)
  • Samwiri Massa v Rose Achen [1978] HCB 297
  • Golf view Inn (U) Limited v Barclays Bank (U) Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 358 of 2009)
  • Verschures Creameries Ltd v Hull & Netherlands Steamship Co. Ltd (1921) 2 KB 608
  • Ex parte Sidebotham, In re Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch D 458
  • FX Mubwire v UEB (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Batuk Vyas v Surat Municipality AIR (1953) Bom 133
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • Attorney-General of the Gambia v N'Jie [1961] 2 All ER 504
  • Oneti Vincent v Commissioner Land Registration and 60 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 225 of 2021)
  • Buladina Nankya v Bulasio Konde (1979) HCB 239
  • Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd (1979) HCB 12

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssenkomi_Herman_Baale_and_Others_v_Ssemakula_Moses_(Miscellaneous_Application_No.1922_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_202_(27_August_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.