[2012] UGHC 226

[2012] UGHC 226

The application fails because the directive of 31st March 2011 was not a decree or order but merely guidance to the parties and the Registrar, and therefore not subject to review under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Furthermore, the consent judgment of 31st August 2001 has already been deliberated on by the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] UGHC 226
Parties
Applicant: Mugabo Peter Bagonza; Applicant: John Ssimbwa; Applicant: Elisa Tusugire; Applicant: Patrick Okilangole; Applicant: J. K. Ssewanyana; Applicant: Lema Norah Katabalwa; Applicant: M. Nakasijja; Applicant: Edith Bainomugisga; Applicant: S. Ojakol; Applicant: Betty Kemirembe; Respondent: James Kimala; Respondent: Namukasa Deborah; Respondent: Musisi Robinson; Respondent: Attorney General; Respondent: Uganda Land Commission
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
1 November 2012
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application No. 631 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
Tuhaise, J
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Consent Judgment, Execution Proceedings, Error Apparent on Record
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Land and Property Review of Court Orders Consent Judgment Execution Proceedings Error Apparent on Record

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mugabo Peter Bagonza

Applicant

John Ssimbwa

Applicant

Elisa Tusugire

Applicant

Patrick Okilangole

Applicant

J. K. Ssewanyana

Applicant

Lema Norah Katabalwa

Applicant

M. Nakasijja

Applicant

Edith Bainomugisga

Applicant

S. Ojakol

Applicant

Betty Kemirembe

Applicant

James Kimala

Respondent

Namukasa Deborah

Respondent

Musisi Robinson

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Uganda Land Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court's directive of 31st March 2011 constitutes a decree or order subject to review under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the consent judgment of 31st August 2001 can be reviewed or set aside by the High Court in light of Supreme Court deliberations.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation for investments made on the suit property based on valid titles.

Ratio Decidendi

The application fails because the directive of 31st March 2011 was not a decree or order but merely guidance to the parties and the Registrar, and therefore not subject to review under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Furthermore, the consent judgment of 31st August 2001 has already been deliberated on by the Supreme Court, and the High Court lacks jurisdiction to review or overturn such matters. The applicants did not extract any formal order or decree before seeking review, which is a procedural requirement. The alternative prayer for compensation is also dismissed as it is premised on the same grounds that have already been conclusively determined by the Supreme Court.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.