Ssenoga & Ors v Ssenoga & Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 169 of 2019)
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 on the basis that the grounds raised concerned alleged misdirection or error in judgment by the Deputy Registrar on matters of law and fact, which cannot constitute an error apparent on the face of the record within the meaning of Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The proper remedy was to file an appeal, not a review application.
Outcome
Application dismissed with direction that proper course is to file appeal
Facts
The applicants, beneficiaries of the estate of the late Nelson Nalukoola Senoga, filed Civil Suit No. 261 of 2018 seeking revocation of Letters of Administration granted to the respondents. They also filed Misc. Application No. 537 of 2018 for a temporary injunction, supported by only one affidavit sworn by the first applicant. The Deputy Registrar dismissed that application on 4 February 2019, ruling that the affidavit in support was defective for non-compliance with legal requirements, leaving the application without proper affidavit support. The applicants then filed this application seeking review and setting aside of the Deputy Registrar's ruling.
Issues
- Whether the application for review was properly brought under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Whether the Deputy Registrar's dismissal of the temporary injunction application constituted an error apparent on the face of the record.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Civil Procedure Act s.82
- Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.2
- Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.8
- Civil Procedure Rules O.36
Cases cited (3)
- Batuk K. Vyas v Surat Municipality AIR (1953) Bom 133
- Kalokola Kaloli v Nduga Robert (Miscellaneous Application No. 497 of 2014)
- Edison Kanyabwere v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.