[2014] UGHCLD 102

[2014] UGHCLD 102

The application for review was dismissed because the applicants failed to demonstrate the existence of new and important evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the original proceedings. The alleged new matters, such as the respondent's lack of letters of administration and the law firm's status, were either irrelevant or could have been discovered with due diligence. The mistake of counsel in failing to adduce evidence does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record as required for review. Furthermore, the application was procedurally defective for failing to attach the decree or judgment sought to be reviewed, rendering it incompetent. The issues raised...

Citation
[2014] UGHCLD 102
Parties
Applicant: Henry Bazira Ssewannyana; Applicant: Florence Judith Nnakalanzi; Respondent: Florence Nakiwala
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
30 April 2014
Case Number
Review Cause No. 849 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Review Cause / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
Luswata, J
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Discovery of New Evidence, Mistake of Counsel, Estate Property Disputes
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Review of Judgment Discovery of New Evidence Mistake of Counsel Estate Property Disputes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Bazira Ssewannyana

Applicant

Florence Judith Nnakalanzi

Applicant

Florence Nakiwala

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Cause / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have discovered new and important evidence previously overlooked by excusable misfortune.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has any interest in the suit property as a beneficiary.
  3. 3 Whether the mistake of counsel should be grounds for review of judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for review was dismissed because the applicants failed to demonstrate the existence of new and important evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the original proceedings. The alleged new matters, such as the respondent's lack of letters of administration and the law firm's status, were either irrelevant or could have been discovered with due diligence. The mistake of counsel in failing to adduce evidence does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record as required for review. Furthermore, the application was procedurally defective for failing to attach the decree or judgment sought to be reviewed, rendering it incompetent. The issues raised...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed with costs to the respondent.