Uganda Case Law

Kabuye and Another v N Shan and Company Limited and 2 Others

Kabuye and Another v N Shan and Company Limited and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 974 of 2019) [2022] UGHCLD 25 (22 February 2022)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 974 of 2019

Judge

Kawesa, J

The application for review fails because the applicants did not comply with mandatory procedural requirements, specifically the failure to sign the notice of motion by counsel, which renders the application defective. Furthermore, the applicants did not establish themselves as aggrieved parties within the meaning of the law, nor did they demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record or any grounds that would justify review under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act. The arguments presented were found to be unfocused and unsupported by the relevant legal provisions. The court deter…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Judgment
• Consent Decree
• Procedural Irregularity
• Aggrieved Party Definition

Kaloli Vs Transroad Uganda Limited (Misc. Application No. 478 of 2019)

Kaloli Vs Transroad Uganda Limited (Misc. Application No. 478 of 2019) [2019] UGHCLD 35 (17 July 2019)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Misc. Application No. 478 of 2019

Judge

Kawesa, J

The High Court granted review, set aside judgment in Civil Suit No. 621 of 2017, and ordered a de novo rehearing because the applicant’s interests had not been considered.

• Review Of Judgment
• Error Apparent On Record
• Locus Standi
• Aggrieved Party Definition
• Joinder Of Parties
• Land Title Disputes

Attorney General and Another v Kamoga and Another

Attorney General and Another v Kamoga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004) [2008] UGSC 39 (6 March 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004

Judge

Odoki, CJ, J.W.N.Tsekooko, JSC, Mulenga, JSC, Kanyeihamba, JSC, Katureebe ,JSC

The Supreme Court held that the High Court judge had jurisdiction to entertain the application for review of the consent judgment entered by the registrar, as the registrar's powers do not include review jurisdiction. The application for review was based on discovery of new and important matter, which under Order 46 could be heard by any judge, not necessarily the one who entered the decree. However, the Court found that the appellants' ignorance of the pleaded fraud in the second amended written statement of defence did not amount to ignorance of a material fact sufficient to vitiate the con…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Consent Judgment
• Powers Of Registrar
• Aggrieved Party Definition
• Setting Aside Judgments
• Pleading Fraud
• Appellate Jurisdiction

Attorney General and Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga and Another

Attorney General and Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004) [2008] UGSC 34 (6 March 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004

Judge

Odoki, CJ, Mulenga, JSC, J.W.N.Tsekooko, JSC, Kanyeihamba, JSC, Katureebe, JSC

The Supreme Court held that the High Court judge had jurisdiction to entertain an application for review of a consent judgment entered by a registrar, as review jurisdiction is not delegated to registrars and is vested in judges under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules. However, the Court found that the appellants failed to establish sufficient grounds to warrant interference with the consent judgment. Ignorance of the pleaded fraud in the amended defence by the appellants' counsel did not amount to ignorance of material facts, as the substance of the fraud allegation was present in earlie…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Consent Judgment
• Powers Of Registrar
• Setting Aside Judgments
• Aggrieved Party Definition
• Fraud In Pleadings

Attorney General and Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga and Another

Attorney General and Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004) [2008] UGSC 35 (6 March 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004

Judge

Odoki, CJ, Mulenga, JSC, J.W.N.Tsekooko, JSC, Kanyeihamba, JSC, Katureebe, JSC

The Supreme Court held that the High Court judge had jurisdiction to review the consent judgment entered by the registrar, as review powers are not delegated to registrars under the Civil Procedure Rules or Practice Directions. However, the Court found that the appellants failed to establish sufficient grounds to warrant review or setting aside of the consent judgment. The alleged ignorance of the pleaded fraud in the amended defence did not amount to ignorance of material facts relevant to the merits of the case, as fraud was sufficiently implied in earlier pleadings and knowledge of the leg…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Judgments
• Consent Judgments
• Powers Of Registrar
• Setting Aside Decrees
• Aggrieved Party Definition
• Fraud In Land Disputes

Allibhai v Bukenya & Another

Allibhai v Bukenya & Another (Civil Appeal 56 of 1996) [1996] UGSC 17 (15 August 1996)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 56 of 1996

Judge

Wambuzi, CJ, Odoki, JSC, Karokora, JSC

The Supreme Court held that a non-party applicant lacked locus standi to review a consent judgment because he was not an aggrieved party and his rights were unaffected.

• Review Of Consent Judgment
• Locus Standi
• Aggrieved Party Definition
• Lease Termination
• Re-entry Rights
• Locus-standi