Download

Uganda Judgment

Commercial Court of Uganda

Kunaga v Real People Finance Services Limited (Miscellaneous Application 675 of 2017) [2024] UGCommC 27 (9 January 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court held that its power to review judgments and orders is conferred by law, specifically Order 46 Rule 7 of The Civil Procedure Rules, which prohibits entertaining an application to review an order made on a previous review. Since the applicant sought to review an order that had already dismissed a prior review application, the present application was misconceived and not permitted by law. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.

02

Material facts

Parties

Kunaga Milly

Applicant

Real People Finance Services Limited

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant contends that her suit was not heard, there was gross abuse of court process, and she will suffer irreparable damage if the application is not granted. She seeks a review of the order that dismissed her previous application for review.
Respondent
The respondent argues that the application is brought against the wrong party, is not supported by an affidavit, and that the applicant's previous application for review was already dismissed with costs. The respondent relies on the procedural bar to further review under the Civil Procedure Rules.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Order 46 Rule 7 of The Civil Procedure Rules

    No application to review an order made on an application for a review of a decree or order passed or made on a review shall be entertained.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court held that its power to review judgments and orders is conferred by law, specifically Order 46 Rule 7 of The Civil Procedure Rules, which prohibits entertaining an application to review an order made on a previous review. Since the applicant sought to review an order that had already dismissed a prior review application, the present application was misconceived and not permitted by law. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court disposition

application dismissed with costs

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Source and reliance status

Commercial 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

Commercial Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2024] UGCommC 27

![](_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA SITTING AT KAMPALA COMMERCIAL DIVISION

Reportable Miscellaneous Application No. 0675 of 2017

In the matter between

KUNAGA MILLY APPLICANT

And

REAL PEOPLE FINANCE SERVICES LIMITED RESPONDENT

Heard: 13 July, 2023. Delivered: 09 January, 2024.

*Civil Procedure — Review — An order rejecting an application for review is not subject to further review.*

| ______________ | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| | RULING |

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

STEPHEN MUBIRU, J.

Background:

[1] The applicant filed Civil Suit No.3132 of 2011 at the Chief Magistrate/s Court of Mengo at Mengo which was heard and dismissed with costs. The applicant thereafter filed Civil Appeal No.9 of 2013 which was heard and dismissed with costs. Still being dissatisfied, the applicant filed an application for review, H. C. Misc. Application No. 009 of 2017 which was heard and dismissed with costs. She thereafter filed this application.

The Application:

[2] The application by Notice of motion is made under the provisions of Order 46 Rule 1 of *The Civil Procedure Rules.* The applicant seeks an order reviewing the order that dismissed the application for review. It is the applicant's case that the that her suit was not heard, that there was gross abuse of court process and that she will suffer irreparable damage if the application is not granted.

The Respondent's affidavit in reply:

[3] In the affidavit in reply of the respondent's Chief Operating Officer, it is averred that the Application is brought against a wrong party as the proper name of the respondent company is Real People Financial Services Uganda Limited. The application is improper as it is not supported by an affidavit. The applicant filed an application for review against the decision of the judge in Civil Appeal No.09 of 2013 which was dismissed with costs.

The Decision:

[4] The power of this Court of reviewing of its own judgments and orders is conferred by law. According to order 46 Rule 7 of *The Civil Procedure Rules*, no application to review an order made on an application for a review of a decree or order passed or made on a review, shall be entertained. it is clear that an order rejecting a review application is not subject to further review. That being so, this application is misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Delivered electronically this 9th day of January, 2024………... Stephen Mubiru……… Stephen Mubiru Judge, 9th January, 2024.

2

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.

Order 46 Rule 1 of The Civil Procedure Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 46 Rule 7 of The Civil Procedure Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.