[2022] UGCA 230

| | THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA, | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA | | | (C0RAM: CHEBORI0N, MADRAMA AND MULYAGONJA, JJA) | | | CIVIL APPEAL NO 229 OF 2021 | | 10 | (Arising from High Court Land Division Miscetlaneous Application No. 958<br>of 2016) Al.t arising from High Court Land Division Misceltaneous<br>Apptication No. 1054 of 2015) | | | APPELLANT<br>MRS SH FA L0VEW00D) | | | VERSUS |

LUYTMA GoDFREU 1.

15 . NAMAZZTEVA) RESPONDENTS 2

(Appeal against the Ruling and Order of the Land Division of the High Court of Uganda delivered by the Keitirima J on lBh September 2020 in Miscellaneous Application No. 958 of 2014

## JUDGMENT OF CHRISTOPHER MADRAMA, JA

20 This appeat arises from the ruting of the High Court in which the High Court struck out the aff idavit in repLy of the respondent who is now the appell.ant in this appeal. and thereby attowed the apptication in Miscettaneous Apptication No 958 ot 2016 as unopposed.

25 The background to the appeat is that the respondents fiLed Miscellaneous Application No 958 of 2016 seeking for orders that the court reviews and sets aside the decision of the Nakawa High Court of setting aside the sate of the suit property in Miscetlaneous Apptication No 105L/2015. SecondLy, they sought an order for the Commissioner of [and registration to rmptement an effective vesting order issued by the High Court Execution

and Baitiffs Division and for the costs of the apptication to be provided for. 30

⁵ For purposes of determination of this appeat, the grounds of that apptication are not materia[. What is materiaI is that the appticants rn Misce[[aneous AppLication No 958 of 2016 (who are now the respondents to this appeat, ob.;ected to the aff idavit rn repty fited on behatf of Mrs Shifa Love Wood and the [earned trial. judge considered the pretiminary objection. The pretiminary objection was that Priscitta Kagwera who deposed to the aff idavit was not a party to the suit and had no express authority from the respondent authorising her to deposed to the affidavit. 10

The learned triaI judge ruted that the deponent did not state in what capacity she swore the supportive affidavit. She was not a party to the application and coul'd onty appear rf she was an unauthorised agent under 0rder 3 rules 'l & 2 of the Civit Procedure Rul.es. He found that the other aLternative was if she apptied to be joined as a party and a stranger to a suit cannot impose himsetf or herself to the suit. There was nothing to show that the respondent authorised the deponent to swear the aff idavit in repty and she was therefore an imposter to the application and her afftdavit was struck o ut. 15 20

Fottowing the striking out of the affidavit in repty, the learned triat judge found that the apptication was unopposed and he made the fol'towing orders:

- 1. The decision of the Nakawa High Court vide Miscettaneous Apptication No 1054 of 2015 arising from Civil Suit No 84 of 2013 Mrs Shifa Love Wood versus Kabyetsiza Rita Redemptor and others is hereby set aside. - 2. The Commissioner Land Registration is to impLement an effective vesting order issued by the High Court Execution and Baitiffs Division. - 3. The respondent is to pay the costs of this apptication. 30

The respondent was aggrieved and appeated to this court on four grounds of appeal that.

- 1. The learned triat judge erred in law when he struck out the affidavit in repl,y on grounds that the deponent had no written authorisation from the appell.ant to depose the same. - 2

- ⁵ 2. The learned triat ludge erred in law when he ruted that the respondent's apptication for review was uncontested, - 3. the learned trial. judge erred in law when he faited to consider the appettant submissions in repty opposing the apptication for review; - 4. the learned triat judge erred in Law when he issued orders determining Mrscettaneous Apptication No 1054 of 2015 sought to be reviewed without rehearing the apptication.

The appel.l.ant prays that the appeal is altowed and the orders of the learned trrat judge set aside and Misce[taneous Application No 1054 of 2015 be dismissed. ln the alternative that Miscettaneous Application No 1054 of 20'15 be heard and determined on its merits.

At the hearing of this appeal the appeltant was represented by learned counseI Ms lrene Nyafwono white the respondent was represented by learned counse[ Mr. Joseph Luzige. With the leave of court, the court was addressed in written submissions for and against the appeat. The appettant fited written submissions on 22 July 2022 while the respondent fited submissions in repty on 1 August 2022.

lnstead of arguing the grounds of appeat, the appetlant's counsel in his written arguments reduced the grounds of appea[ into issues namety:

- l. Whether Prrscitta Kagwera needed written authorisation from the appettant to deposed to the aff idavit in repty? - 2. Whether the respondent's apptication for review was uncontested; - 3. Whether the learned triat judge erred in law when he faited to consider the appettant submissions in repty opposing the apptication for review - 4. whether the learned triat judge erred in law when he made order that in effect determined in Miscettaneous Appl.ication No 1054 of 2015, Kabyetsiza Rita Redemptor & 06 0thers v Mukubira Sowedi and 02 Others without hearing the parties.

5. Whether MisceLtaneous Apptication No 958 of 2016 should be dismissed.

lf

⁵ Whether the deponent PriscitLa Kagwera needed written authorisation from the appettant to depose to the affidavit in repty.

The appettant's counseI invited the court to consider the affidavit of the deponent which shows that the suit property comprised in Mawokota Block 14 Ptot Number 27 was purchased for her by her daughter Mrs Shifa Lovewood and she took possession of the same, renovated and begun residing in it in Juty 2015. Further that on 30 September 2015 the respondent evicted her from the suit property. The [earned triat judge found that the deponent was an imposter on the ground that there was nothing to show that the respondent authorised her to depose to the affidavit in repty. 0n that basis he struck out the aff idavit in repty.

t5

The appel.tant's counseL submitted that the law governing aff idavits is 0rder 19 of the CiviI Procedure Rutes which in rute 1 (1) provides that "affidavit shatl. be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his or her own knowtedge to prove, except on interlocutory appIications on which statements of his or her believe may be admitted provided that the grounds thereof are stated". She submitted that the generaI rute on affidavits is that they ought to be based on the deponent's knowtedge.

The appe[tant's counsel submitted that the deponent's affidavit was based on her knowtedge and therefore futf itled the requirements of 0rder 19 Rute 3 of the CiviI Procedure Rutes, Further in making his decision, the learned triat judge relied heavil.y on the provisions of 0rder 3 rutes 1 & 2 of the Civit Procedure Rutes which requires apptications or appearances to be made or done by the party in person or by his or her recognised agents or advocates and such agents include persons hotding powers of attorney. 25

- The appel.l.ant's counseL submitted that the learned triat judge mtsconstrued the provisions of Order 3 rute 1 of the Civit Procedure Rutes as the rute contains an important exception that the [earned triat judge omitted to ana[yse. She submitted that under rute 1, it is provided that: "Any appl.ication to or appearance or act in any Court required or authorised by the law to be 30 - made or done by a party in such court may except where otherwise 35

- ⁵ expressly provided by any law for the time being in force...". She submitted that 0rder 19 rute 3 expressty requiring that affidavits be conf ined to such facts as the deponents ab[e of their own knowtedge to prove, affidavits are one of the exceptions envisaged under 0rder 3 rule I since a party may not have direct knowtedge of the things in contention, in a case and must rety - on the witness who does. She contended that order 19 rule two (1) of the Civil, Procedure Ru[es recognises that affidavits are evidence because it provides that: "upon any apptication evidence may be given by affidavit...". Further section '117 of the Evidence Act deems atl persons competent witnesses untess court is of the opinion that they are prevented from 10 - understanding the questions put to them. There was no finding by the Learned triat judge that Priscitta Kagwera was not abte to understand questions put to her. Further, she did not require a written authority to give evidence by way of affidavit on matters which were within her knowtedge and the learned triat judge erred when it struck out in her aff idavit in repl.y. 15 - The appeltant's counseI invited the court to consider the decision of Hon Justice Stephen Mubiru of the High Court in the Miscettaneous Application No 645 of 2020 Bankone Ltd v Simbamanyo Estates Ltd where there was an objectron to the aff idavit in repty on the ground that the deponent did not have express authorisation to swear the affidavit on behatf of the appLicant. 20 - Mubiru J found that the common web of Legal provisions retating to aff idavrt evidence was the fact that it had to be based on the knowtedge or belief of the deponent. Further that affidavits are the means of producing sworn, written evidence and must be used in apptications where sworn evidence is required by the court. lt fotl.owed that the vatidity of the affidavit is subject 25 - to the same rute governing oral evidence under section 117 of the Evidence Act to the effect that atI persons are competent to swear aff idavits. Mubiru J further reviewed several decisions for the propositron that a person is not to swear an affidavit in a representative capacity untess he or she is an advocate or hotder of a power of attorney or duty authorised. They are to 30 - the effect that where there is no written authority to swear an affidavit on behatf of others, the affidavit is defective. He however found no basis for 35

s the principte in the rutes of evidence nor those of procedure to support the proposition of law.

The appeLtant's counsel invited the court to agree with the opinion of honourabte justice Stephen Mubiru in the above cited decision. She prayed that ground one of the appeaI is answered in the affirmative.

- 10 On the 2nd issue the question is whether the learned triat judge erred in law when he hetd that the respondent's application for review was uncontested. Thrs considered together with the issue 3 of whether the learned triaL judge erred in law when he faited to consider the appettant's submissions in opposing the apptication for review. - 1s The appetlant's counset submitted that the learned trlaL judge erred to f ind that the appl.ication was not contested. He submitted that the respondent had frted, through her counset, the written arguments in defence. He further submitted that a party who has not fited an affidavit in repty is not a stopped from defendrng the appl.ication on points of [aw. Such a party may be 20 deemed to have admitted the facts in the apptication but shatl not be denied the opportunity to defend the apptication on points of [aw.

ln further support of the argument that the written submissions proved that the appl.ication was contested, the appet[ant's counseI reIied on the decision of Honourabte Justice Opio - Aweri in Kamsiime K. Andrew vs Himalaya

- 2s Traders & 05 Qthers; supreme court Misceltaneous Apptication No 60 of 2021 deal with a situatton where there was no affidavit in repLy but written submissions in repty had been f ited in defence to the application. The written submissions were taken into account in the award of costs. counseL prayed that grounds two and three are answered in the affirmative. - 30 As far as ground four of the appeal. is concerned, the issue framed was whether the learned triat judge erred in law when he made finaI orders determining Miscetl.aneous Appl.ication No 1054 of 2015 wrthout hearing the parties.

⁵ As far as this appeat is concerned, I do not need to consider ground 4 of the appeal without first having determined the previous grounds which were referred to as issues. I woutd therefore consider the submissions of the respondents counsel in repty to those I have set out above.

ln repl.y the respondents counsel submitted that the notice of appeat had not been served on the respondent withrn seven days in breach of rule 78 ('l) of the Judicature (Court of AppeaL Rutes) Directions. He submitted that an essentia[ step in pursuance of the appeaI was not taken by the appettant which warrants striking out the notice of appeaI and the appeat itsel.f. 10

As far as the merits of the appeal is concerned, he submitted in repty to the lega[ arguments of the appel.[ant on issues framed as numbers 1, 2 and 3. 15

ln response, the respondents counseL submitted that the pretiminary objection was on the issue of whether Priscitta rightfutl,y deposed to an affidavit in opposition to the apptication. He contended that the issue was on appearance in court and the mandate of the said Priscitla to enter appearance on behatf of the respondent who is now the appetl.ant in this appeat. The right to appear behatf of a party is governed by Order 3 of the CiviI Procedure Rutes. The main reason the court struck out the respondents affidavit in repty was that the affidavit did not compty with the provisions of 0rder 3 of the Civit Procedure Rutes. The respondent's counseL retied on Ordered 3 rute 2 of the CPR which def ines who recognised agents are and inctude inter atia persons hotding powers of attorney. 20 25

The respondent's counseL submitted that the said Priscitla Kagwera swore the onty affidavit in repl.y opposing the apptication but she was neither a party to the apptication nor did she state the capacity in which she deposed to the contents of the affidavit in opposing the apptication. She did not even

annex any document to show that she actuatty had authority from the respondent, who is the appetl'ant, indicating that she had instructed her or authorrsed her to oppose the apptication on her behatf. He contended that it is a cardinat princip[e of [aw that whoever wishes to rety on a document 30

in an application or a matter or cause has to attach it to the pleadings for $\mathsf{S}$ the inspection of court.

$\mathbf{r} = \mathbf{r}^T \mathbf{r} = \mathbf{r}^T$

Further the respondent's counsel submitted that it is true that under Order 19 rule 3 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, any person may depose to an affidavit provided the matters to which the affidavit is confined are within the knowledge of the deponent. However, the authority to file an application or to oppose an application is the preserve of a party to the application except in instances provided for under the law such as in suits by minors or persons of unsound mind. Counsel conceded that the adducing of evidence by way of affidavit or oral testimony is governed by the evidentiary principles of relevance and admissibility of evidence and the mandate to file an application or to oppose an application has the aspects of locus standi. He submitted that no authority of the principal was attached to the affidavit

- in reply. He relied on Mugoya Construction and Engineering Ltd versus Central Electricals International Ltd; High Court Miscellaneous Application No 699 of 2011 where the applicant's lawyers filed the application and swore 20 - the affidavit in support without attaching the authority in the affidavit in support.

Counsel submitted that the draftsman of the Civil Procedure Rules deemed it important to include Order 3 of the Rules in order to safeguard litigants who may find themselves prosecuting cases in court against persons 25 purporting to be acting on behalf of the actual parties. He contended that, that is the main reason why the law required such persons to first obtain authority/powers of attorney authorising them to act on behalf of the actual parties to the matters/suits before the court.

He contended that the obvious result of any application or suit in court is 30 that one party has to be successful and the other party has to lose. Where the parties proceeding against another in an application or suit in the court, and the application or suit is opposed or defended by another person, the applicant or plaintiff runs the risk of prosecuting the case against an impostor who may not be in a position to satisfy the decree or order if any 35

and from whom to obtain the fruits of his or her successfuI titigation. He contended that it is the correct wisdom why the appeltant now thought it rmportant to issue/grant the requisite powers of attorney dated 29th September 2020 to the said PrisciLl.a Kagwera, to prosecute Miscettaneous Apptication No 958 of 2016 from which the appeal arose. He contended that the grant coutd not rectify the anomaties caused by the absence of such 5

powers at the time of hearing of the appIication. 10

Further, the powers of attorney were issued by the appettant on 29th of September 2020 authorising her to represent the appettant in Mrscellaneous Apptication No 958 of 2016 from which the appeal, arose when the appl.rcation had a[ready been conctuded in a ruting dated 18th of September 2020.|n the premises, the respondents counsel submitted that this court uphotds the decision of the triaI court and orders issued thereunder.

Further with regard to issues number 2 and 3, the respondent's counsel supported the decision of the judge that the application was not opposed. He contended that after striking out the rncurabty defective affidavit, the application remained unchaltenged and the appettant coutd not at the same time expect the trial. court to consider her submissions where the appl.ication itsetf was not chatlenged. 20

## Consideration of the appeat

I have carefutty considered the appeat against the ru[ing of the Learned tria[ judge striking out an affidavit in opposition to an apptication for review and also proceeding to determine the apptication on the basis that it was unopposed.

30 35 The respondents had fiLed an apptication by notice of motion under the provisrons of 0rder 46 rule (1) & (8) of the Civit Procedure Ru[es and section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, as we[[ as section 33 of the Judicature Act for orders that the court reviews and sets aside the decision/judgement of Nakawa High Court which had set aside the sate of the suit property in its decision in Miscet[aneous Appl,ication No 1054 of 2015. Secondty, they

sought an order that the Commissioner land registration implements and $\mathsf{S}$ effects the vesting order issued by the High Court Execution and Bailiffs Division and costs of the applications to be provided for.

$\pi = \pi^{\bullet} \cdot \pi = \pi^{\bullet}$

The grounds of the application were that the applicant duly purchased the property comprised in Block 14, 27 at Maduuma after a due execution process. Secondly the applicants took possession and developed the $10$ property. Thirdly the respondent in a fraudulent manner and misrepresenting to the Nakawa court in Miscellaneous Application No 1054 of 2015 at Nakawa, never added the applicants as parties neither did she serve the applicants with due process of court. Fourthly the sale was ordered by the execution and bailiffs division of the High Court which the 15 very court that ought to have entertained the objector proceedings. Nakawa court subsequently nullified the sale without giving the applicants a chance to be heard based on misrepresented facts. On the sixth ground the applicant's purchase of the suit property was in court and before the alleged respondent's purchase from the judgement debtor. Lastly that it is in the 20 interest of justice that the application be granted and the applicants had.

Clearly this was a matter that arose in execution in that the sale of the suit property was set aside in the Miscellaneous Application No 1054 of 2015.

In opposition to the application Priscilla Kagwera, stated that she opposed the affidavit in support of the application on the ground that the property the 25 subject matter of the suit was purchased for her by her daughter (the appellant) from one Mukubira Sowedi in an agreement dated 16^th June 2015 which she attached as annexure "A". Thereafter after her daughter paid for the property in full, she took possession of the same and renovated it and began living in it in July 2015. On 30^th of September 2015 the applicants 30 evicted her from the suit property based on a warrant to give vacant possession issued by the Execution and Bailiffs Division of the High Court in the Miscellaneous Application No 20167 of 2015. The warrant for vacant possession was issued in an application between the respondents of this appeal and one Mukubira Sowedi and dated 10^th of September 2015. In 35 paragraph 6 she deposed that her daughter Shifa Lovewood successfully

- ⁵ challenged her eviction and the purported attachment of the suit property in Nakawa High Court Miscettaneous Appl,ication No'l054th 2015 and she atso attached the ruLing in that regard. ln that apptrcation and ruting, the property was released from attachment upon finding that the attachment and sate of the property was itlegal and the sate of the property was cancetted. - The affidavit was deposed to by the deponent in her capacity and to the best of her knowtedge. 10

I have carefutty considered the matter before the court particutarly with regard to the striking out of the aff idavit in repty to the appl.ication to review another decision in another appLication before a different judge in which the sate of property in execution was set aside. lt is my conctusion that the proceedings before the court arose from execution proceedings. The fact that it was handled by different divisions of the High Court does not prejudice the fact that they arise from the same proceedings. Further and generatly applications for review are fited before the judge who made the decision sought to be reviewed under Order 46 rute 2 of the Civit Procedure Rutes on any grounds for review other than the ground of discovery of new and important matter or evrdence.

The Law envisages that execution process may be levied against persons who are not parties to the proceedings before the court. The deponent whose affidavit was struck out, deposed that she was in possession of the suit property and that she had been evicted through execution process. Order 22 rule 84 of the Civit Procedure Rutes provides that where the hotder of a decree for the possession of immovabte property or the purchase of any such property sotd in execution of a degree is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property, he or she may make an apptication to the court complaining of the resistance or obstruction. Particutarty Order 22 rul.e 84 (2) provides as fo[Lows: 25 30

> (2) The court shatl fix a day for investigating the matter and shatl someone the party agarnst whom the appl.ication is made to appear and answer it.

⁵ The rule i[tustrates that a person in possession of property does not have to be a party to the proceedings to be heard by the court. lt was sufficient for the person to be in possession of the suit property. This is further fol[owed by rule 85 of 0rder 22 whrch provides that:

85. Detention of the judgement debtor for resistance or obstruction to possession of immovabte property.

Where the court is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned without any just cause by the ludgement debtor, or by some other person at his or her instigation, it shatl' direct that the appl.icant be put into possession of the property, and, where the appl.icant is stil.l. resisted or obstructed in obtaining possession, the court may atso, at the instance of the appticant, order the judgment debtor, or any person acting at his or her instigation, to be detained in a civiL prison for a term whrch may extend to 30 days.

Ctearty the powers of the court are wide enough to hear and to even imprison third parties in the process of execution. ln addition, where the court is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned by any person cLaiming in good faith in possession of the property on his or her own account the court may make such order as it may deem fit in terms of rul.e 86 of Order 22 of lhe Civil. Procedure Rutes. 20

- I have carefuL[y consldered the ruling of the learned triat judge before striking out the affidavit in repl.y to the apptication. The [earned trial, judge relied on Qrder 3 rul.e ] of the Civit Procedure Rutes which provides that any appl.ication to appearance or act in any court required or authorised by the law to be made or done by a party in such a court may, except where otherwise expressl.y provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person or by his or her recognised agent. Recognised agents are further defined by 0rder 3 rute 2 of the civit Procedure Rules to incLude. inter alra persons hol.ding powers of attorney authorising them to make such appearances and appl.ications and to make 25 30 - such acts on behatf of the Parties. 2q

⁵ The concern of the tearned triat judge is that the deponent did not indicate the capacity in which she made the sworn affidavit. He found that she was not a party to the apptication and could onLy appear if she fett within the ambit of Order 3 rutes 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Ctearty in execution matters, a person rn possession of immovabte property can be examined and can appear in his or her own right. The deponent claimed the property as a beneficiary and a person in possession. She did not have to be a party to any proceedings before ctaiming a right to be heard. Addrng her to the title of the suit as a party woutd be a formal requirement and not substantive as she stated her interest and capacity in which she 10

- deposed to the affidavit. She stated that she was the beneficiary to the impugned sa[e agreement and was in possession of the property. ln any case, she ctaimed that she derived her right from the respondent who bought the property on her behatf and she was in possession of the property. As a matter arising from execution proceedings, she coutd be 15 - heard because she had a right of audience and it was erroneous to strike out her affidavit in repty. The question as to whether her cLaim was a bona ^fide cl.aim is a matter that coul.d be addressed on the merits. The rutes give any person in possession a right to be heard before the mattertouching on the right to remain on the land can be determined. ln my judgment, the fact 20 - that the sate of the suit property to the appetl.ant was in the names of the appeltant is a detait that can be investigated. ln the circumstances, particutarty in tight of the fact that the deponent ctaimed that she was in possession and had been evicted under a warrant of court in execution proceedings, it was erroneous to strike out the affidavit on the ground that she was not a party or that she was a stranger to the proceedings. 25 30

The above f inding is suffrcient in al.l.owing grounds l, 2 and 3 of the appeat. Further, the deponent had the requisite knowl.edge and fited evidence before the court. Her evidence was materiaI and retevant. I woul.d in the circumstances, aLtow the appeal. and set aside the order striking out the affidavit in repLy of PriscitLa Kagwera who ctaimed to be in possession and a beneficiary of a sate agreement. a matter in which she was directl.y

interested and which was the subject matter of the appl.ication as wet[ as execution proceedings. ln the same vein, the orders which proceeded on the basis that the apptication was unopposed cannot stand and I would set them aside on the ground that they violate the right to a fair hearing under articLe 28 (1) of the Constitution in that the directl'y affected party in execution proceedings was not heard. I would further make an order that the apptication be remitted back to the High court and fixed before another judge of the High Court for hearing on the merits after hearing the respondent to the appl.ication. The appeal succeeds with costs. 10 5

| 15 | Dated at Kampata the | fek | day of | cet}<br>I | 202 | |----|----------------------|-----|--------|-----------|-----| | | nstopher Madrama | | | | |

Justice of AppeaL

### ⁵ THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

## IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

(Coram: CLreboion Baishak| Christoplrcr Madrama & Irene Mulgagonja)

## CIVIL APPEALNO.22g OF 2O2I

MRS SHIFA LOVEWOOD APPELLANT

### VERSUS

## 1. L(MMA GODFREY

# 2. NAI|IAZZIDVA RESPONDENTS

(Appeal against the Ruling and Order of the Land Diuision of tlw High Court of Uganda deliuered by Keitiima, J on 78th September, 2020 in Miscellaneous Application No.958 of 2016)

# JUDGMENT OF CHEBORION BARISHAKI . JA

I have had the benefit of reading in draft the judgment of my learned brother Christopher Madrama, JA and I agree with him that this appeal should succeed with costs.

- ²⁰ Since Mulyagonja, JA also agrees, the appeal is allowed with the following orders; - ¹. The ruling and orders of the High Court in Miscellaneous Application No.958 of 2016 are set aside.

- ⁵ 2. Civil Application No.958 of 2016 is remitted back to the High Court for hearing before another Judge. - 3. The respondent shall pay the costs of the Appeal in this Court.

It is so ordered.

borion Barishaki

¹⁰ JUSTICE OF APPEAL

(

### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA,

### IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

(Coram: Cheborion Barishaki, Madrama and Mulyagonja, JJA)

## CIVIL APPEAL NO 229 OF 2021

(Arising from High Court Land Division Miscellaneous Application No. 958 of 2016; All arising from High Court Land Division **Miscellaneous Application No. 1054 of 2015)**

MRS SHIFA LOVEWOOD ...................................

#### **VERSUS**

1. LUYIMA GODFREY ...................................... 2. NAMAZZI EVA

(Appeal against the Ruling and Order of the Land Division of the High Court of Uganda delivered by Keitirima J on 18^th September 2020 in Miscellaneous Application No. 958 of 2016)

### JUDGMENT OF IRENE MULYAGONJA, JA

I have had the benefit of reading in draft the judgment of my brother, Christopher Madrama, JA. I agree with the decision that this appeal should succeed and with the orders that he has proposed.

Dated at Kampala this $\frac{16}{16}$ Day of $\frac{1}{2022}$ .

skolungig

Irene Mulyagonja JUSTICE OF APPEAL

$\cdots$