Wakilii

Uganda Muslim Welfare Association v Saudi Marble Company (Misc. Application No 290 of 2015)

High Court · [2017] UGHCLD 110 · 2017 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of Assistant Registrar's order under Civil Procedure Act s.82, Judicature Act s.33, and Civil Procedure Rules Order 46 rr 1 and 8
Decision
Application dismissed with costs

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 court dismissed the application for review. The applicant had not suffered a legal grievance as required under Civil Procedure Act s.82. The impugned order directing a survey was substantially similar to an order made pursuant to the applicant's own subsequent prayer in June 2016 for a fresh survey, which was completed in August 2016. No error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient cause for review was demonstrated.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant brought head suit No. 63/2006 seeking orders that 240 hectares of South Busoga Forest Reserve belonged to it. The applicant was granted a temporary injunction in M.A. 90/2006 on 7 June 2007 restraining the respondent from trespassing on the 240 hectares until final determination. The respondent wrote to the registrar on 30 July 2015 alleging the applicant had abused the court order by harvesting trees beyond the 240 hectares, and requested a survey to identify and demarcate the disputed forest area. On 18 August 2015, both parties appeared before the Assistant Registrar represented by counsel. The Assistant Registrar ordered the District Surveyor to survey off the 240 hectares subject of the temporary injunction. The applicant sought review of this order. On 24 May 2016, the matter came before the Deputy Registrar, and the applicant's counsel prayed for a joint survey. The Deputy Registrar ordered a joint survey on 7 June 2016, which was carried out and a report filed on 15 August 2016 demarcating the disputed 240 hectares.

Issues

  1. Whether the Assistant Registrar's order of 19 August 2015 for a survey should be reviewed and set aside.
  2. Whether the applicant suffered a legal grievance for purposes of Civil Procedure Act s.82.
  3. Whether there was any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Orders — Legal Grievance — Civil Procedure Act s.82
An applicant for review under Civil Procedure Act s.82 must show that they have suffered a legal grievance, meaning the judgment or order given was against them or affected their interest. A person who obtains substantially the same relief through a subsequent order that they themselves prayed for has not suffered a legal grievance warranting review of an earlier order.
Civil Procedure — Review — Grounds — Error Apparent on Face of Record
Where an applicant seeks review of an order directing a survey, and subsequently prays for and obtains a substantially similar order for a survey which is then carried out, there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review, as the applicant has obtained the substantive relief through their own subsequent application.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (1)

  • Muhammed Allibhai v WE Bukenya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Muslim Welfare Association v Saudi Marble Company (Misc. Application No 290 of 2015) [2017] UGHCLD 110 (31 October 2017)
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.