Wakilii

Wamalwa Robert & 15 others v Kibimba Limited (Formerly Tilda Uganda Limited) (Miscellaneous Application 18 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 117 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of an order declaring a civil suit to have abated
Decision
Application for review dismissed

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

An application for review must be grounded on discovery of new and important evidence, mistake or error apparent on record, or other sufficient reason. Where a trial judge took judicial notice of the COVID-19 lockdown period, a Presidential address published after the impugned order does not constitute new evidence justifying review. A letter requesting a hearing date that was on court record at the time of the ruling is not new evidence and its re-evaluation amounts to an appeal, not review. The application for review was dismissed.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed

Facts

The Applicants filed Civil Suit No. 72 of 2019 against the Respondent claiming UGX 200,000,000 in special damages, general damages, and costs for loss of or non-use of land. On 5 March 2020, Court issued directives for filing witness statements and set a hearing date for 14 September 2020. The Plaintiffs flouted the directives and did not appear on the hearing date. On 28 October 2021, the trial court declared the suit to have abated. The Applicants applied for review, arguing that the trial court failed to consider that the travel ban on border districts (where they resided) was lifted on 20 September 2020, and that a letter requesting summons on 11 March 2021 constituted a step taken to prosecute the suit. They contended that a Presidential address published on 4 January 2022 qualified as new evidence justifying review.

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 with costs.
  • Preliminary objection rendered moot and not ruled upon.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments and Orders — Grounds for Review — New Evidence
An application for review on the ground of discovery of new evidence requires that the evidence was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not have been produced at the time the decree was passed or order made after exercise of due diligence. Evidence that a court has already taken judicial notice of does not constitute new evidence for purposes of review.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments and Orders — Judicial Notice — Effect on New Evidence Claim
Where a trial judge has taken judicial notice of the date of imposition of a nationwide lockdown under the Evidence Act s.56(2) and (3), a Presidential address published after the impugned order confirming the date the lockdown was lifted does not qualify as new evidence sufficient to ground an application for review.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments and Orders — Distinction Between Review and Appeal
Arguments that merely repeat old and overruled contentions or call for appraisal and re-evaluation of evidence already on court record at the time of the impugned ruling are matters for appeal, not review. A document that was on court record and considered by the trial judge does not constitute new evidence.
Evidence — Judicial Notice — COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown Measures
Courts are empowered under the Evidence Act s.56(2) and (3) to take judicial notice of practices that have attained such notoriety that the court would be justified in taking judicial notice of them. Once a court takes judicial notice of a fact, there is no need to call evidence in that regard.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Farm Input Care Centre Ltd Vs Klein Karoo Seed Marketing (PTY) Ltd
  • Trustees of Rubaga Miracle Centre v Mulangira Ssimbwa (High Court Miscellaneous Application 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 & 8 Others v Akumu Hellen (High Court Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wamalwa Robert & 15 others v Kibimba Limited (Formerly Tilda Uganda Limited) (Miscellaneous Application 18 of 2022) [2022] UGHC 117 (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.