Download

Uganda Judgment

High Court of Uganda

Kalangwa v Senyama (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1622 OF 2021) [2025] UGHC 246 (30 April 2025)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The application for review was dismissed on the basis that the High Court does not possess the jurisdiction to review its own judgment delivered on appeal. The court relied on established precedent, specifically Erimiya Serunkuma vs. Elizabeth Nandyose (1959) EA 127, which clearly states that such power is not vested in the High Court under any special jurisdiction. The applicant's request was therefore legally untenable, and the respondent was awarded costs.

Court disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.

02

Material facts

Parties

Kalangwa Edward

Applicant

Senyama Amon

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review its own judgment given on appeal.

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant sought orders for the High Court to review its own judgment delivered on appeal, contending that there were grounds justifying such review.
Respondent
The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to review its own judgment given on appeal under any special jurisdiction.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Erimiya Serunkuma vs. Elizabeth Nandyose (1959) EA 127

    The High Court has no power to review its own judgment given on appeal under any special jurisdiction.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The application for review was dismissed on the basis that the High Court does not possess the jurisdiction to review its own judgment delivered on appeal. The court relied on established precedent, specifically Erimiya Serunkuma vs. Elizabeth Nandyose (1959) EA 127, which clearly states that such power is not vested in the High Court under any special jurisdiction. The applicant's request was therefore legally untenable, and the respondent was awarded costs.

Court disposition

application dismissed

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Source and reliance status

High Court 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.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

High Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2025] UGHC 246

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

(LAND DlvlsloN)

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1622OF 2021

(ARISING FROM CIVIL APPEAL NO. 014 OF 2010)

(ARISING FROM CIVIL APPEAL NO. 036 OF 2007)

KALANGWA EDWARO.....-- APPLICANT 10

-VS-

SENYAMA AMON----------- ------------------RESPONDENT

BEFORE: Hon. Lady Justice Olive Kazaarwe MukwaYa.

RULING

This motion was brought seeking orders for this Court to review its own Judgment given on appeal.

It is trite that the High Court has no power to review its own Judgment given on appeal under any special jurisdiction. see Erimiya serunkuma vs. Elizabeth Nandyose (1959) EA 127.

This application is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent'

l

Olive Kazaarwe Mukwaya

25 JUDGE

30th April 2025

Delivered by Eccmis to Counsel for the Parties'

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Erimiya Serunkuma vs. Elizabeth Nandyose (1959) EA 127

Case cited

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.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.