[2024] UGCommC 27
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...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] UGCommC 27
- Parties
- Applicant: Kunaga Milly; Respondent: Real People Finance Services Limited
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 675 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- Stephen Mubiru, J
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Abuse of Court Process, Application for Review
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kunaga Milly
Applicant
Real People Finance Services Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an order rejecting an application for review is subject to further review.
- 2 Whether the application is properly brought before the court.
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
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
# **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