Wakilii

Wamalwa and 15 Others v Kibimba Limited (formerly Tilda Uganda Limited ) (Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 278 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of an order declaring Civil Suit No. 72 of 2019 to have abated
Decision
Application for review 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

Held that the application for review failed because no new evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record was established. The trial judge had taken judicial notice of the COVID-19 lockdown period, making documentary proof of the lifting date irrelevant. The letter requesting a hearing date was already on record when the original ruling was delivered and thus not new evidence. Re-evaluating its implications would constitute impermissible reappraisal of evidence on review. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs

Facts

The Applicants filed Civil Suit No. 72 of 2019 against the Respondent claiming UGX 200,000,000 compensation for loss of use of their land. Court issued directives on 5 March 2020 requiring witness statements and set hearing for 14 September 2020. The Plaintiffs did not file witness statements or appear on the hearing date. On 28 October 2021, Court declared the suit to have abated. The Applicants applied for review arguing that the trial judge failed to account for the lifting of the COVID-19 travel ban on border districts on 20 September 2020, which would affect the computation of time for abatement purposes. They also argued that their counsel's letter of 11 March 2021 requesting summons constituted a step to proceed with the suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants are entitled to a review of the impugned order.
  2. Whether the Applicants are entitled to the reliefs sought.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.
  • Preliminary objection rendered moot and no ruling made on it.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Grounds for Review — Discovery of New Evidence
An application for review on the ground of discovery of new evidence cannot succeed where the purported new evidence relates to a fact of which the court took judicial notice when delivering the original ruling. Once a court takes judicial notice of a fact, proof of that fact becomes irrelevant.
Civil Procedure — Review — New Evidence — Evidence Already on Record
Evidence that was on court record at the time of delivering the original ruling does not constitute new evidence for purposes of review. Revisiting the implications of such evidence amounts to impermissible reappraisal and re-evaluation of evidence on review.
Administrative Law — Judicial Notice — COVID-19 Lockdown Measures
Courts may take judicial notice of the imposition and lifting of COVID-19 lockdown measures in Uganda as these were widely publicized and attained sufficient notoriety to justify judicial notice. Once judicial notice is taken, there is no need to call evidence on the matter.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Farm Input Care Centre Ltd Vs Klein Karoo Seed Marketing (PTY) Ltd (Supra)
  • Trustees of Rubaga Miracle Centre v Mulangira Ssimbwa (HCMA No. 576 of 2006)
  • F. X Mubuuke v UEB (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • R v Simpson [1983] 3 All ER 789
  • Odongo Too Yasinto and 8 Others v Akumu Hellen (HCCA No. 0033 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wamalwa and 15 Others v Kibimba Limited (formerly Tilda Uganda Limited ) (Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2022) [2022] UGHCCD 278 (13 December 2022)
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.