[2024] UGHC 514
The application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to serve the Notice of Motion on the Respondent, which is a mandatory procedural requirement under Order 52 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Additionally, the remedies sought were outside the jurisdiction of the court, as hearing notices are not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] UGHC 514
- Parties
- Applicant: Mugisa Kahangi; Respondent: Kyahurwenda Mileniya
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 88 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- dismissed
- Judges
- David S.L. Makumbi, J
- Legal Topics
- Service of Process, Taxation Hearing Notices, Revision Jurisdiction, Notice of Motion Requirements
- 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
Mugisa Kahangi
Applicant
Kyahurwenda Mileniya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the taxation hearing notices can be set aside by the court.
- 2 Whether failure to serve the Notice of Motion on the Respondent is fatal to the application.
- 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to revise its own appellate decision.
Ratio Decidendi
The application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to serve the Notice of Motion on the Respondent, which is a mandatory procedural requirement under Order 52 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Additionally, the remedies sought were outside the jurisdiction of the court, as hearing notices are not decisions that can be set aside and the court cannot revise its own appellate decisions. The Applicant's lack of representation and misunderstanding of court process did not excuse these fundamental procedural defects.
Court Disposition
dismissed
Orders
- This application is dismissed under Order 52 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules for want of notice and for lack of merit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
**THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT FORT PORTAL**
**MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO 88 OF 2023**
**(ARISING FROM FORT PORTAL HCCA NO. 0029 OF 2012)**
**(ALL ARISING FROM KAS-02-CV-CS-LD NO. 010 OF 2011)**
**MUGISA KAHANGI==========================================APPLICANT**
**VERSUS**
**KYAHURWENDA MILENIYA=================================RESPONDENT**
**BEFORE HON. JUSTICE DAVID S. L. MAKUMBI**
Parties Unrepresented.
**RULING**
**BACKGROUND:**
This matter was brought by way of Notice of Motion under Order 52 Rule 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 98.
The Applicant sought to move court for orders that:
1. The taxation hearing notices of the Plaintiff be set aside which is dated 3rd March 2023, 13th April 2023 and 5th July 2023 on the same matter. 2. The costs of the Application be provided for.
The Application was supported by the affidavit of the Applicant Mugisa Kahangi and was in brief premised on the grounds that:
1. The taxation hearing notices were arrived at without the Defendant’s notice. 2. It is to the Applicant’s notice that the three taxation hearing notices bear different amounts yet on the same matter. 3. It is just and fair and reasonable that this application be allowed since the Applicant is about to lose the access road as approved by the Physical Planner of the Mpondwe Lhubiriha Town Council.
**ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION:**
This application appears misconceived and is probably due to the fact that the Applicant is unrepresented and obviously lacks knowledge of court process. However, as much as I am alive to the Constitutional standard of ensuring that substantive justice is done without undue regard to technicalities, it is my opinion that the application is grossly misconceived and cannot be relied upon to secure any remedy from court.
To begin with Hearing Notices are not decisions of Court and to that extent cannot be set aside. The proper thing to do would be for the Applicant to appear on the date(s) specified in the Notice(s) and raise whatever concerns he may have before Court and if dissatisfied with the decision of the Court with regard to the same, to formally appeal against the decision of the Taxing Officer.
Furthermore, according to the Applicant’s submissions he appears to seek revision of the appellate decision of this Court on which the Taxation Notice(s) are based. Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act restricts this Court’s powers of revision to subordinate courts and therefore cannot sit in revision of its own decision.
It is also worth noting that the Applicant did not serve the Notice of Motion on the Respondent contrary to Order 52 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Act. Service of the Notice on an affected party is a mandatory requirement in the Civil Procedure Rules and no remedy can arise from a Notice of Motion which has not been served on the Respondent(s).
**RESOLUTION:**
I accordingly find that this application fails for failure to serve the Respondent contrary to Order 52 of Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Act and furthermore for seeking remedies outside of the power of this Court to grant.
**ORDER:**
This application is dismissed under Order 52 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules for want of notice and for lack of merit.
**David S. L. Makumbi**
**JUDGE**
**15/03/24**