Wakilii

Tayebwa Robert v Cresensio Mukasa (Civil Application No. 11 of 2017)

Supreme Court · [2023] UGSC 85 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to review and recall a Supreme Court judgment under Rules 2(2) and 35(1) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules.
Decision
Application for review dismissed; the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2014 stands.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (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 4 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations steady — 4 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. 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 applicant, who was not a party to Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2014, sought review of the Supreme Court's judgment under Rules 2(2) and 35(1) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules. The Court held that Rule 35 corrects only errors that give effect to the Court's intention and cannot be used by a non-party to reverse a decision in the same proceedings. The applicant was, in substance, inviting the Court to sit in appeal of its own decision. He also failed to prove standing without letters of administration and relied on suspect, improperly certified title documents. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2014 stands.

Facts

The respondent held letters of administration to the estate of the late Gusite Nakaima, who died in 1941 owning land at Mawogola (Block 30 Plot 1 at Kabagoma and Block 31 Plot 1 at Ntyazo). Seeking to transfer the land in 1986, he found it had been registered in the name of Yakobo M.N. Senkungu in 1980, who had transferred portions to other registered proprietors. The respondent sued in HCCS No. 382 of 1987 to cancel the titles for fraud. The High Court found no fraud, but the Court of Appeal reversed in Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2006, and the Supreme Court upheld that reversal in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2014. The applicant, claiming as a son and beneficiary of Ezekiel Rwankanyuzi—alleged to have been registered as proprietor of Block 31 Plot 1 in 1996—was not a party to any of those proceedings. He filed this application to review the Supreme Court's judgment, asserting it had overlooked his father's registered proprietorship.

Issues

  1. Whether a person who was not a party to an appeal qualifies as an 'interested person' entitled to seek correction of errors under Rule 35(1) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules.
  2. Whether the alleged omission to evaluate evidence of a registered proprietor was an error correctable under Rule 35(1) as giving effect to the Court's intention when judgment was given.
  3. Whether the applicant established grounds under Rule 2(2) to set aside the judgment as null and void or to prevent an abuse of process.
  4. Whether the applicant, claiming as a beneficiary of an estate, could establish a right to the deceased's land without letters of administration.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Slip Rule — Scope of Rule 35(1) Supreme Court Rules
The power under Rule 35(1) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules to correct a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission extends only to corrections that give effect to what was the intention of the Court when judgment was given.
Civil Procedure — Finality of Decisions — Non-Party Seeking Correction to Reverse Decision
A person who was not a party to an appeal cannot invoke Rule 35 of the Supreme Court Rules to correct alleged errors where the effect would be to reverse the Court's decision in the same proceedings, as this amounts to inviting the Court to sit in appeal of its own judgment.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Rule 2(2) — Setting Aside a Judgment
Before an applicant can rely on the inherent power under Rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules to set aside a judgment, the applicant must show that the judgment is null and void, or that setting it aside is necessary to achieve the ends of justice or to prevent an abuse of process.
Succession & Estates — Standing of Beneficiary — Section 191 Succession Act — Letters of Administration
A person with a beneficial interest in a deceased's land may bring an action in his own right, but must prove that interest by evidence in a court of first instance; under section 191 of the Succession Act no right to the property of an intestate may be established in court until letters of administration have first been granted.
Evidence — Proof of Title — Section 201 Registration of Titles Act — Certified Copies
Under section 201 of the Registration of Titles Act, a certified copy of a certificate of title is admissible as prima facie proof only when signed by the Registrar of Titles and authenticated by the seal of the Office of Titles; a photocopy certified by a Commissioner for Oaths has no such evidentiary value.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (2)

  • Israel Kabwa v Martin Banoba Musiga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1995)
  • E.B. Ngakawa & Sons Ltd v Beatrice Kobusinge & 16 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 2017)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

Tayebwa Robert v Cresensio Mukasa (Civil Application No. 11 of 2017) [2023] UGSC 85 (2 November 2023)
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.