Share
Aliganyira Ya Kobo Kyomya v Trustees of Hoima Catholic Diocese (Civil Application No. 273 of 2015) [2015] UGCA 2028 (20 October 2015)
- Citation
- [2015] UGCA 2028
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Bossa, JA
- Case number
- Civil Application No. 273 of 2015
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Bossa, JA
- Case number
- Civil Application No. 273 of 2015
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application was dismissed because the persons alleged to be alienating the land were not parties to the proceedings, and the respondent was not involved in the alleged acts. The Court of Appeal emphasized that it cannot issue orders against individuals who are not before it, as this would violate their right to be heard. The applicant was advised that the proper course of action would be to sue the alleged wrongdoers in a competent trial court. The court reiterated its role as an appellate body, not a trial court, and found the application misconceived both in terms of parties and forum.
Court disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
02
Material facts
Parties
Aliganyira Ya Kobo Kyomya
Applicant Counsel: Tumwesigye WicliffThe Trustees of Hoima Catholic Diocese
Respondent Counsel: Jeff Bogere Mukwana03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Injunction
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Court of Appeal can issue an injunctive order against persons who are not parties to the proceedings.
- 02
Whether the respondent is a proper party to the application for injunctive relief regarding the alleged alienation of land.
- 03
Whether the applicant's remedy lies in a different forum.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant seeks an injunctive order to restrain certain individuals, some of whom are family members, from distributing, subdividing, and wasting the suit land before the disposal of Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2014. The applicant alleges imminent alienation of the land and requests the court's intervention to preserve the subject matter.
- Respondent
- The respondent, through counsel, contends that it is not a party to the alleged alienation of the land. The respondent argues that the application is misconceived as the persons alleged to be alienating the land are not before the court, and the respondent should not be subjected to orders concerning actions it is not involved in.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Principle of natural justice; audi alteram partem.
A court cannot issue orders against persons who are not parties to the proceedings, as this would contravene their right to be heard.
- 02
Civil procedure rules and general principles of fair hearing.
The proper party must be before the court for relief to be granted against them.
- 03
Jurisdictional limits of appellate courts.
The Court of Appeal is not a trial court and cannot entertain matters that require determination of facts against non-parties.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application was dismissed because the persons alleged to be alienating the land were not parties to the proceedings, and the respondent was not involved in the alleged acts. The Court of Appeal emphasized that it cannot issue orders against individuals who are not before it, as this would violate their right to be heard. The applicant was advised that the proper course of action would be to sue the alleged wrongdoers in a competent trial court. The court reiterated its role as an appellate body, not a trial court, and found the application misconceived both in terms of parties and forum.
Obiter and limits
- If the land of the applicant is being alienated by the people the applicant names, the proper course for him to take would be to sue them for the alienation in a competent court.
- This Court is not a trial Court. In any case, it cannot issue an order against persons who are not before it as this would contravene their right to be heard.
Court disposition
application dismissed with costs
- The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CIVIL AI'PLICATION NO.27.] OF 20I5
ALIGANYIRA YA KOBO KYOMYA: : : : ] : : : : : : ]: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : APPLICANT
vElisUs
THE TRUSTEES OF HOIMA CATHOLIC DIOCESE:::::::: IIE,SPONDENT
CORAM: HON. LADY. IUSTICE SOLOMY IIALtTNCI IIOSSA.,IA
DATE: 20/10/2015 AT 09:30 AM
IttrLt N(;
The applicant is seeking to invoke the powers of this Court to issue what it describes as an injunctive order against certain pelsons sorne of who are his family members, allegedly because they are in advanced stages of distributing, subdividing and wasting the suit land befbre disposal of Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2014 between the Applicant and the Respondent.
Counsel for the Applicant concedes that the Respondent is not part to the alleged alienation of the land. lt is theretbre apparent that the Applicant has dragged the wrong pafiy to the wrong Court. lf the land olthe Applicant is being alienated by the people the Applicant names, the proper course fbr him to take rvould be to sLte thern for the alienation in a competent Coum. This Court is not a trial Court. In any case, it cannot issue an order against persons who are not betbre it as this would contravene their right to be heard.
This application is therefore rnisconceived. In the result, it is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Dated October' 23. 201 5
| Dated October' 23. 201 5 | | |--------------------------------------|-------| | | f6""' | | Signed by: Solorny Balungi Bossa, JA | |
Ruling read in the presence ot':
Tumwesigye Wicliff, Counsel for the Applicant
Jeff Bogere Mukwana, Counsel fbr the Respondent
5 The Applicant and the Representative of the Respondent, namely; Rev. Father Adebo Daniel and James Tumwesigwa, Chairman of the Christian Community in Kihemba Sub Parish, Hoima Catholic Diocese.
Signed by: ['ff8\*".
<sup>10</sup> Hon. Justice Solonry Balungi Bossa, JA
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.