Wakilii

Tukahirwa Florence and Others v Registered Trustees of Kabale Diocese (Misc. Application No. 002 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 389 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to review High Court judgment in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2022 (arising from Civil Suit No. 0079 of 2013)
Decision
Application dismissed; applicants directed to pursue remedy by way of appeal

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 an application to review its earlier judgment in a land appeal. The court held that the applicants' complaints—failure to conduct locus in quo, alleged mischaracterisation of land, and limitation—did not constitute errors apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order 46 Rule 1(b). Locus in quo proceedings are a preserve of the trial court unless additional evidence is formally admitted on appeal. Judgmental errors on points of law are subject to appeal, not review. The proper remedy for the applicants was an appeal to a higher court.

Outcome

Application dismissed; applicants directed to pursue remedy by way of appeal

Facts

The applicants sought to review a High Court judgment delivered on 22 January 2026 in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2022 (arising from Civil Suit No. 0079 of 2013), a land dispute between the applicants and the Registered Trustees of Kabale Diocese. The applicants alleged errors apparent on the face of the record: that the appellate judge failed to conduct locus in quo and thereby failed to distinguish land gifted to the applicants from land donated to the respondent; that the judge mischaracterised the suit land; and that the judge erroneously held the claim was time-barred. The respondent opposed the application, asserting the judge's findings were clear and no mistake existed on the record. The applicants' counsel failed to file written submissions by the court-ordered deadline of 10 April 2026, filing them only on 20 April 2026 after judgment notice had been issued.

Issues

  1. Whether the grounds raised fall within the permissible scope of review under the law?
  2. What are the appropriate remedies?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Scope of Review — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
The power of a court to review its own judgments is a creature of statute and is limited to the grounds specified in Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rule 1(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules. An error apparent on the face of the record must be so manifest and clear that no court would permit it to remain on the record. Review is an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is pronounced and signed, it cannot be altered by the court that pronounced it.
Civil Procedure — Appellate Jurisdiction — Locus in Quo — Distinction Between Trial and Appellate Functions
Locus in quo proceedings are a preserve of the trial court. An appellate court may admit additional evidence or require such evidence to be taken under Section 80(1)(d) of the Civil Procedure Act, but only upon a formal application to admit additional evidence. Failure by an appellate court to conduct locus in quo does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record where no application to admit additional evidence was made. An appeal is not a re-hearing.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Judgmental Errors — Distinction from Errors Apparent on the Face of the Record
A judgmental error—an alleged error in the court's evaluation of evidence or application of law—is not a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Such errors are subject to appeal, not review. The review jurisdiction cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merit; that is the province of a court of appeal.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Purpose and Limits of Review Jurisdiction
The purpose of review jurisdiction is not to provide a back door by which unsuccessful litigants can seek to re-argue their cases. A review cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case and cannot be brought merely for a fresh hearing or argument or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier. Where a party is aggrieved by a judgment on grounds that do not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record, the proper remedy is an appeal.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (6)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tukahirwa Florence and Others v Registered Trustees of Kabale Diocese (Misc. Application No. 002 of 2026) [2026] UGHC 389 (21 April 2026)
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.