[2019] UGHCFD 38

[2019] UGHCFD 38

The court found that the inventory relied upon by the applicant was not new evidence, as it was referenced in her earlier pleadings and was not produced at trial. The court further held that the alleged mathematical error regarding the acreage awarded to the respondents was not apparent on the face of the record, as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] UGHCFD 38
Parties
Applicant: Nalebe Ephrance Kiyingi; Respondent: Ssolome Bbosa; Respondent: Bbosa Geofrey; Respondent: Lyazi Medard
Court
HC: Family Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
20 May 2019
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application No. 213 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
Mukwaya, J
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Stay of Execution, Distribution of Estate, Beneficiary Entitlement
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Family and Children Review of Judgment Stay of Execution Distribution of Estate Beneficiary Entitlement

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nalebe Ephrance Kiyingi

Applicant

Ssolome Bbosa

Respondent

Bbosa Geofrey

Respondent

Lyazi Medard

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has sufficient grounds for review of the judgment and orders in Civil Suit No. 203 of 2012.
  2. 2 Whether execution of the judgment and orders arising from Civil Suit No. 203 of 2012 can be stayed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the inventory relied upon by the applicant was not new evidence, as it was referenced in her earlier pleadings and was not produced at trial. The court further held that the alleged mathematical error regarding the acreage awarded to the respondents was not apparent on the face of the record, as the 2.8 acres was based on a family resolution endorsed by the applicant and her siblings, and there was no dispute regarding this resolution. The doctrine of estoppel prevented the applicant from denying the implementation of the family resolution. Regarding the stay of execution, the court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the required conditions: there was no...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The applicant has failed to show sufficient grounds for review of the Judgment and Orders of the Court in Civil Suit No.203 of 2012.
  • The application for stay of execution is denied.