[2012] UGHC 133

[2012] UGHC 133

The High Court held that revision under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act is not available where the trial Magistrate had jurisdiction to dismiss the suit as res judicata and there is no evidence of illegal or materially irregular exercise of jurisdiction. The applicant did not challenge the jurisdiction of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] UGHC 133
Parties
Applicant: Opwanya Daniel; Respondent: Oodo Steohen Iporotum
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
9 July 2012
Case Number
Hct-09-cv- Cr. No. 0001/2012
Procedural Posture
Revision Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
Musota, J
Legal Topics
Revision Jurisdiction, Exparte Judgment, Res Judicata, Setting Aside Judgment
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Revision Jurisdiction Exparte Judgment Res Judicata Setting Aside Judgment

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Opwanya Daniel

Applicant

Oodo Steohen Iporotum

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Revision Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial Magistrate acted with material irregularity or injustice in dismissing claim No. 19 of 2010 as res judicata.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court can set aside an exparte judgment or order a retrial through revision proceedings under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement of Civil Suit No. 19 of 2010 or a retrial on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that revision under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act is not available where the trial Magistrate had jurisdiction to dismiss the suit as res judicata and there is no evidence of illegal or materially irregular exercise of jurisdiction. The applicant did not challenge the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, nor did he demonstrate that the Magistrate acted illegally or with material irregularity. The proper procedure for setting aside an exparte judgment is by application under Order 9 Rule 12 or Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules, not by way of revision. Consequently, the application for revision was misconceived and dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for revision is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.