[2024] UGHCLD 266

## 5 **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA**

# **(LAND DIVISION)**

## **MISC APPLICATION NO. 2596 OF 2024**

## **(ALL ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO. 303 OF 2020)**

10 **MICHEAL WAMALA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT**

### **VERSUS**

- **1. SEBUGULU MUKASA TEOPISTA NABUKALU (Administrator to the Estate of the late John Chysostom Muwonge Mukasa)** - 15 **(Suing through his lawful attorney Mulindwa Mukasa Fredrick)** - **2. EDWARD MUWONGE** - **3. LIVINGSTONE LUBWAMA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENTS**

# **BEFORE: HON LADY JUSTICE IMMACULATE BUSINGYE BYARUHANGA** 20 **RULING**

This application is brought by way of Notice of Motion under Section 82 and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 33 of the Judicature Act and Order 46 rules 1, 2 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking the following orders that;

- a. The Consent Judgment and decree entered on 17th September 2024 by this - 25 Honorable Court be reviewed and or set aside. - b. The suit be set down for hearing on its merits. - c. For this application be provided for.

The application was accompanied by an affidavit sworn by the applicant **Micheal Wamala** on 30th September 2024**.** The grounds of the application are laid out in the application 30 and in the affidavit in support but briefly they are;

- a. The 1st respondent/ plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 3030 of 2022 against the 2nd and 3rd 5 respondents on the 12th day of April 2022. - b. The 2nd and 3rd respondents filed a defence and counterclaim in Civil Suit No. 3030 of 2022 challenging the proprietorship of the 1 st respondent's interest in the suit land. - c. The 1st 10 respondent filed an application for a temporary injunction vide HCMA No. 715 of 2022 arising out of Civil Suit No. 303 of 2022 against the 2nd and 3rd respondents and the same was dismissed by the Learned Deputy Registrar. - d. The 1st respondent appealed against the decision of the learned Assistant Registrar which appeal was allowed by this Honorable Court. - e. The 1st 15 respondent filed Misc. Application No. 1596 of 2022 against the applicant 2 nd and 3rd respondents and among other for contempt of temporary injunction. - f. The applicant filed Misc. Application No. 1848 of 2022 against the respondents herein for review and or setting aside the temporary injunction order which application was disallowed by this honorable court on the ground that they had no 20 locus. - g. The applicant together with Nakanywagi Florence filed Civil Suit No. 496 of 2023 against the respondents. - h. The applicant filed Misc. Application No. 1112 of 2023 seeking for a temporary injunction against the respondents. - 25 i. The respondents filed their replies and stated that there were already court orders over the same subject matters. - j. The Learned Assistant Registrar disallowed the application but issued a temporary injunction to the effect that the status quo of the suit land in respect to both the legal and equitable interest be maintained to which the applicant and his siblings 30 are in occupation of the suit land. - k. That when the application for contempt of court order came up for hearing this Honorable Court observed that this is a family matter for all the parties and closed off all the applications in order to hear the main suit on merit. - l. The Honorable court further directed the Assistant Registrar to visit locus of the 35 suit land.

Page **2** of **16**

- 5 m. The applicant and his siblings have been threatened by unknown persons to evict them from the 5 acres that they occupy on grounds that there is a consent Judgment. - n. The applicant with his lawyers have since discovered that there is a consent which was erroneously entered between the respondents. - 10 o. That in the said consent the respondents have distributed the entire suit land among themselves while knowing the applicant's interest and the existence of civil suit no. 496 of 2023 which is on the same subject matter. - p. The respondents fraudulently and under collusion entered the purported consent in order to defeat the interests of the applicant and his siblings on the suit land. - 15 q. The applicant and his siblings are aggrieved by the consent. - r. The said purported consent renders civil suit no. 496 of 2023 a nugatory as the subject matter in the said suit is in the same subject matter and same parties. - s. The respondents misdirected this Honorable court in entering into this consent well knowing that there exists civil suit no. 496 of 2023 which is over the same subject 20 matter and the parties. - t. That it is in the interest of substantive justice and equity that this application be allowed. - u. That it is fair and equitable that the contents of HCCS No. 303 of 2022 be heard on its merits. - Subsequently, the 1st and 3rd 25 respondents filed their affidavits in reply deposed by **Ssebugulu Mukasa Teopista Nabukalu** and **Livingstone Lubwama** respectively wherein the grounds of the application and the contents of the affidavit in support, were contested.

The 1st respondent contends that the applicant was never a party to the consent between herself and the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The 1st 30 respondent also contended that the applicant was never a party to the main suit and does not have locus standi to move this honorable over the orders being sought.

Page **3** of **16**

- Furthermore, the 1st 5 respondent averred that the applicant and his late father were not beneficiaries to the estate of the late Lugolobi who died after having distributed his estate and the balance by will with the suit land being left to the 1st respondent's late husband which the 1st respondent and her family have been utilizing exclusively for over 55 (fiftyfive) years now. - The 3rd 10 respondent averred that the applicant was never a party to the main suit Civil Suit No. 303 of 2022 and as such is not aggrieved by the consent judgment. Furthermore, the 3 rd respondent contended that the applicant is a nephew of the 2nd respondent came onto the suit land during the pendency of Civil Suit No. 303 of 2022 with no entitlement whatsoever. The 3rd respondent contended that the applicants forced entry onto the suit - 15 land and was reported to the police where applicant confessed having no interest on the suit land.

### Background of the application

The 1st respondent/ plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 303 of 2022 against the defendants (the 2 nd and 3rd respondents) claiming trespass and fraud and subsequently, they sought a 20 declaration that the suit land belongs to the estate of the late John Chrysostom Muwonge Mukasa, a declaration that any claims to the suit land previously held by the 2nd respondent ceased upon the issuance of the deed of gift to his three nephews, a declaration that the 2nd and 3rd respondent are trespassers on the suit land and a declaration that the family of the late Chrysostom Muwonge Mukasa are lawful occupants

25 on the suit land.

In the facts constituting the cause of action, the plaintiff contended that the suit land was originally the registered in the names of the late Lugolobi Mukaili (the father of the 1st defendant and uncle to the late John Chrysostom Muwonge Mukasa) who passed away in 1965 and left a will from leaving land in Bugerere to the 1st defendant/ 2nd respondent

30 herein and two of his siblings as well as John Chrysostom Muwonge Mukasa to use the suit land comprised in Kyadondo Block 167 Plot 31 land at Kiwale Nakwero Wakiso District as he wished but that the same should not be sold.

- 5 The plaintiff also contended that the late John Chrysostom Mukasa subsequently acquired letters of administration to the estate of the late Lugolobi Mikaili together with the 1st defendant and consequently acquired registration to the suit land along with the 1 st defendant as administrators and later registered proprietors (joint tenants) and the suit land remained in the custody of the late John Chrysostom Muwonge Mukasa throughout - 10 his lifetime and fell into the hands of the plaintiff following his death.

The plaintiff further contended that the late John Chrysostom Muwonge Mukasa who had previously lived on the suit land during the lifetime of the late Lugolobi Mikail started exclusively developing and utilizing the same as a home on which he built a new house in 1979 and for farming together with his family and registered his farm as Nakwero Mixed 15 Farm after the reading of the late Lugolobi's will. The plaintiff contended that the late Lugoobi, the late John Chrysostom Muwonge alongside with other family members one of whom was a daughter to the late John Muwonge Mukasa who died in 1990 are buried

on the suit land.

The plaintiff also averred that in 2000 before his death, the late John Chrysostom 20 Muwonge Mukasa purchase an extra 10 acres of land on plot 33 from a one R. Musazi son of Nansikombi which was adjacent to the suit land and started to utilize the same. The plaintiff contended that in 2011, the 1st defendant by way of gift deed, gave his legal interest that he had retained in the suit land to the sons of the late John Chrysostom Muwonge Mukasa i.e. Rene Dolf Mazinga Mukasa, Jereme Muyomba Mukasa and 25 Frederick Mulindwa Mukasa and the transfer instruments were formerly executed in 2016.

The plaintiff further contended that prior to the execution of the gift deed the 1st defendant handed over the land title to the suit land to the Ministry of Works, Housing and Communication represented by Newplan Ltd for the purposes of carrying out a subdivision on the suit land to make way for parts of the Gayaza Kalagi Road works as compensated by Government. In addition, the 1st 30 respondent/plaintiff contended that she discovered that the suit land had been subjected to fraudulent subdivisions following the surrender of the suit land to Ministry of Works without her knowledge. Furthermore, the plaintiff also averred that following the execution of the gift deed, the 1st defendant (2nd

5 respondent herein) executed powers of attorney to Fredrick Mulindwa Mukasa for the purposes of cancellation of the fraudulent titles in order to give effect to the deed and transfer of title to the suit land into the names of the three sons of the late John Chrysostom Muwonge Mukasa.

The plaintiff further contended that she had since learnt that the 1st defendant issued powers of attorney to the 2nd 10 defendant authorizing him to among others stop any developments on the suit land to sell transfer or convey the suit land to any one or to transfer it into his own (2nd defendant)'s name.

In reply, the defendants filed a joint written statement of defence wherein they contended that the suit land originally belonged to Lugolobi Mikaili, the late father of the 1st defendant

15 who passed away in 1965 testate leaving several properties which he distributed to his family members. The defendants contended that Chrysostom John Muwonge Mukasa was appointed caretaker with limited right to use the suit land but never to sell the same.

The defendants further contended that Edward Muwonge Salongo is the only surviving son of Lugolobi Mikaili heir and administrator and Edward Muwonge and Chrysostom

20 John Muwonge Mukasa were the administrators of estate of Lugolobi Mikaili having been registered themselves as joint tenants on the suit land. The defendants further averred that Chrysostom Muwone Mukasa passed on in 2000 testate and never included the suit land in his estate and as such the suit land did not constitute as part of his estate.

The defendants also claimed that Edward Muwonge Salongo has never surrendered any 25 legal rights to the plaintiff or her children in 2011. Furthermore, the defendants also contended that the plaintiff's dealing with Newplan Ltd for UNRA land acquisition without the registered proprietor's consent was unlawful.

On 17th September 2024, the parties entered into a Consent Judgement wherein it was agreed among the parties that the plaintiff (the 1st respondent herein) would retain 8.8 30 acres in her names as the Administrator of the Estate of the Late Chrysostom John Muwonge Mukasa, the 1st defendant (the 2nd respondent herein) would retain 7 acres as well as complete the process of reconstruction of the land title to the suit land.

- Furthermore, it was agreed that the 2nd 5 defendant executes mutation forms and transfers in favor of Sebugulu Mukasa Teopista Nabukalu for 8.8 acres as total acreage of the suit land. It was also agreed that the burial grounds would be registered in the names of Irene-Dolf Mazinga Mukasa who shall hold the burial grounds in trust for the family of Edward Muwonge and the family of the Late Chrysostom John Muwonge Mukasa and similarly - 10 the burial grounds will be accessible to both families for any cultural and traditional functions. Being dissatisfied with this consent judgment, the applicant filed this application to review and set aside the said consent judgment.

It should be noted that the applicant together with Florence Nakanwagi, Semu Sekitto and Luyimbazi Peter applied in the main suit vide Civil Suit No. 303 of 2022 through 15 Miscellaneous Application No. 1848 of 2022 in which they sought to set aside the temporary injunction order issued in Miscellaneous Appeal (ML) 13 of 2022 and seeking for contempt of court orders and the same was disallowed on the grounds of lack of locus standi since they were not parties to the main suit.

Following this, the applicant filed Civil Suit No. 496 of 2023 against the respondents 20 seeking for a declaration that the applicant is a lawful owner of five acres of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 167 plot 31 by virtual of being a beneficiary of the late Kakeeto George William who was the son of the late Lugolobi Mikayili, an order directing the Commissioner Land Registration to cancel all the subdivision that were created by the 1st respondent on the suit land, an order of cancelation of the 1st respondent's name 25 on the suit land's certificate of title and a permanent injunction.

#### Representation

During the hearing of the application, the applicant was represented by Counsel Muhangi George and Nakabugo **Sarah** while Counsel Namanya Moses represented the 1st respondent and Counsel Mugaya Kayima Jonathan represented the 2nd and 3 rd 30 respondents.

#### Parties' submissions

- 5 Counsel for the applicant submitted that the issue for determination is whether the Consent Judgment entered on the 17th day of September 204 by this Honorable Court should be reviewed and or set aside. Counsel proceeded to submit that the said consent entered by the respondents is intended to deprive the applicant of his property that is 5 acres of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 167 Plot 31 measuring approximately 20 - 10 acres. Furthermore, counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant inherited his land from their late late father (George William Kakeeto) who got the same land from his father Late Mikayili Lugolobi who was the lawful owner and or registered proprietor of the suit land and the same was confirmed by the Assistant Registrar's locus report.

In addition, counsel for the applicant argued that the respondent's allegation in their 15 affidavit in reply that the applicant cannot be aggrieved since he was a party to Civil Suit No. 303 of 2022 is a misconception since you do not need to be a party to a suit to be affected by the decision of the that suit. Counsel went ahead to submit that the law looks at the effect of the said decision on 3rd parties who may not be party to the main suit.

Counsel further submitted that this position was reaffirmed in **Re- Nakivubo Chemist (U)**

20 **Ltd in the matter of Companies Act (1979) HCB and Kawdu versus Bever Ginning Co. Ltd & ors 1929 AIR Nag Par 185,** where court noted that; '*… For court to consider a matter for review of an order passed affecting a third party, it must be a person who has suffered a legal grievance and this principle applies depending on the particular circumstances of each case."* It is counsel for the applicant's argument that the 25 respondents entered into the impugned consent mainly to deprive the applicant and his siblings of their share of the 5 acres and also deny this Honorable court of an opportunity to investigate the fraudulent dealings of the respondents.

Counsel submitted that the respondents were aware of the existence of Civil Suit No. 496 of 2023 which relates to the main subject matter wherein the ill motives and the fraudulent 30 actions of the respondents are being claimed against. Counsel also submitted that the respondents entered into the impugned consent and distributed the suit land inclusive of the applicant's five acres with a motive to render Civil Suit 496 of 2023 nugatory. Counsel cited the Supreme Court case of **Attorney General & Anor versus James Mark** - 5 **Kamoga & Anor Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004** wherein the of **Joweria Nanyonga Nakato versus Namavumba Fatuma** was cited and it laid down the grounds upon which a consent order can be reviewed and they include proving that the order was made through fraud, collusion, duress and other sufficient reason which would enable the court to set aside a Consent Judgment. Court further noted that such sufficient reason might include - 10 misapprehension of material facts relating to the consent judgment or circumstances which would enable court vitiate a contract. Counsel for the applicant proceed to argue that the applicant in his affidavit in support and rejoinder, there are several reports by the DISO, RDC and GISO which all confirm that the applicant's possession and possession of the suit land and similarly these reports establish the fact that the 1st respondent's late - 15 husband was never a beneficiary of the lstate of the Late Lugolobi Mikayili and yet in the impugned consent, the 1st respondent was given land while denying the real beneficiaries of their inheritance.

In conclusion, counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents connived with each other and acted fraudulently by entering into the Consent Judgment and as such 20 there is sufficient cause or reason to review and set aside the said consent.

In reply, counsel for the respondents submitted that for a person to competently bring an application for review, he or she must show that he or she is an aggrieved person or is affected by the decree or order of court to be reviewed. Counse equally cited the case of **Re Nakivubo (supra)** wherein the phrase "any person considering himself aggrieved" 25 was defined in **Ex parte Side Botham in RE Side Botham (1880) 14 Ch. D 458 at 465 per James L. J as,** "*But the words 'person aggrieved' do not really mean a man who is disappointed by a benefit which he must have received if no other order had been made: A person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongly deprived him of something or* 30 *wrongly affected his title."*

Counsel for the respondents argued that from the facts deposed by both parties, it is clear that the applicant has not suffered any legal grievance and similarly, that it is a total falsehood that the Consent Judgment was procured through collusion and fraud. Counsel

Page **9** of **16**

- 5 further submitted that this application is a confluence of unsubstantiated false allegations and figments of the applicant's imagination that fail to disclose a legal grievance warranting the setting aside of the Consent Judgment. Furthermore, counsel for the respondents argued that the impugned Consent settled Civil Suit 303 of 2022 and not Civil Suit 496 of 2023 which the applicant is free to pursue the latter to its logical - 10 conclusion. Counsel argued that it is a misguided supposition that the consent in Civil Suit No. 303 of 2022 would render Civil Suit No. 496 of 2023 nugatory is a false premise that cannot be founded in the plain reading and interpretation of the former suit.

In addition, counsel for the respondent submitted that being aggrieved is but a shoe in the door for a party seeking review. While relying on the case of **FX Mukuuke versus**

- 15 **UEB HCMA No. 98 of 2005,** Counsel for respondent submitted the compelling grounds to be proved in a review application including i) that there is a mistake or manifest mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, ii) discovery of a new and important piece of evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him or her at the time when the decree was passed or the 20 order made and iii) that any other sufficient reason exists. Counsel argued that no effort - at all was made to prove or argue these grounds and the applicants' application must fail as a matter of course.

Furthermore, counsel for the respondents submitted that the only party who can originate an application to vitiate the consent should be a party privy to the consent ad not a 25 stranger such as the applicant in the instant application. Counsel cited the Supreme Court decision of **Allibhai versus Bukenya & Anor Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996 UGSC 17** wherein **Karokora (JSC)** noted that, "… *Finally in my considered opinion, the appellant not having been a party to the proceedings which resulted in the consent Judgment sought to be reviewed and there being no facts at the material time from which he could*

30 *be considered as an aggrieved party within the meaning of Section 83 of the CPA and Order 42 rule 1 of the CPR so as to clothe himself with a right to present an application for review, I would think in all circumstances of the case, that he had no locus standi to present the application for review. In my view … he was and still is free to file an independent suit against whoever is on the land irrespective of the consent Judgment…"*

Page **10** of **16**

- 5 Counsel also submitted that the applicant in the instant case is not so different from the appellant in the above cited precedent since the former still has audience to make out his claim in Civil Suit No. 496 of 2022 and not to abuse the process of court through this forum. In conclusion, counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no evidence that this application would affect the hearing and determination of Civil Suit No. 496 of 2023 - 10 or that the applicant's rights are being hindered or taken away by the respondent's consent settlement.

Having considered Counsel's submissions, I shall now proceed to resolve the issue before court.

## **Decision of court**

15 The main issue for consideration before court today is **whether the Consent Judgment in Civil Suit No. 303 of 2022 can be reviewed and set aside?**

Counsel for the applied for setting aside the Consent Judgment by way of review under **Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rules 1 1 2&8 of the Civil Procedure Rules which** provide as follows: -

- 20 *"Any person considering himself or herself aggrieved— (Emphasis added.)* - *a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Act, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or* - *b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Act, may apply* - 25 *for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order on the decree or order as it thinks fit.'*

**Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules** which amplifies on the law by provides as follows: -

30 1. **Application for review of Judgment**

- 5 **(1)** *Any person considering himself or herself aggrieved* - *(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or* - *(b) By a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed and who from the discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after the exercise* 10 *of due diligence was not within his or her knowledge or could not be produced by him or her at the time when the decree was passed or the order made or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him or her, may apply for a review of* 15 *Judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order.*

It should be noted that a party seeking to review and set aside a Consent Judgment must be aggrieved. An aggrieved party was defined by **Justice Karokora as he then was** in **Mohammed Allibhai versus W. E. Bukenya and Another, C. A 56 of 1996,** citing, **Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd; In the matter of the Companies Act (1979) HCB 12;** to 20 include any party who has been deprived of his property. He also cited the case of **Kawdu vs Bever Ginning Co. Ltd, Akot and Others 1929 AIR Nagpur 185;** wherein it was noted that, whereas court has inherent powers to review an order passed where it affected a third party; it must be a person who has suffered a legal grievance and the principle

**Justice Odoki** observed that it is well established that while a 3rd 25 party may apply for review under the law, the party must establish that he is an aggrieved person.

According to the case of **George William Kateregga versus Commissioner for Land Registration & 12 ors HCMA No. 347 of 2013, Hon Justice Bashaija,** noted that, *"While appreciating that only a party to a suit has a right of appeal, it is not correct to state that* 30 *only a party to a suit may apply for a review of Judgment."*

applies depending upon the peculiar circumstances of each case. In the same case,

Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules clearly states that any person considering himself or herself aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed but for which no appeal has been preferred, or from which no appeal is allowed may apply for a

Page **12** of **16**

- 5 review of the Judgment (emphasis on the underlined). The expression 'any aggrieved person' has been interpreted in a wealth of authorities to mean such a person who may be aggrieved may be a party to the suit or any third party with interest in the subject matter of the suit. (See **George William Kateregga versus Commissioner for Land Registration & 12 ors HCMA No. 347 of 2013 and Adonio Mutekanga (1970) EA 429.** - 10 Furthermore, for a third party to file an application for review, he or she must be ready to prove that he or she has suffered a legal grievance as per the case of **Mohammed Allibhai versus W. E. Bukenya and Another (supra). See also Jinja Municipal Council and Another versus the Regsitered Trustees of the Indian Recreation Club and 2 others HCMA 66 of 2004.** Applying the same principles to the instant case, I 15 perused the pleadings of Civil Suit No.303 of 2022 wherein a Consent Judgment was entered on 17th September 2024 and I have observed that the applicant was not a party to the suit. However, in paragraph 19 of the affidavit in support of the application, the application, the applicant deposed that the respondents distributed the entire suit land among themselves well knowing that the suit land forms the subject matter in Civil Suit 20 496 of 2023.

In paragraph 4 and 6 of the affidavit in rejoinder, the applicant deposed that he and is siblings inherited 5 acres of land from their late father Kakeeto George William who had gotten the same from his late father Mikayili Lugolobi who was the original owner and registered proprietor of the suit land and that they have been in occupation of the same. 25 In addition, according to paragraph 5 of the affidavit in rejoinder, the applicant deposed that the Consent Judgment entered into by the respondents has greatly affected the applicant together with his siblings since the land distributed among the respondents in the impugned consent included the respondents' alleged five acres. It should be noted that applicant did not adduce any evidence to the effect that he had letters of 30 administration in respect of the estate of Mikayili Lugolobi or Kakeeto George William in

I have critically studied the pleadings in Civil Suit No. 496 of 2023 and I have observed that the applicant together with Florence Nakanwagi instituted the said suit against the

order to close himself with the right to present the application for review.

- 5 respondents claiming ownership of suit land comprised in Kyadondo Block 167 Plot 31 land at Kiwale Nakwero Wakiso District which was the subject matter in Civil Suit 303 of 2022 from which the impugned Consent Judgment originates. The applicant and the said Florence Nakanwagi equally filed Miscellaneous Application No. 1113 of 2023 for an interim order and the said application was withdrawn by the applicant and co-plaintiff. The - 10 applicant and the co-plaint had also filed Miscellaneous Application No. 1112 of 2023 for a temporary injunction under Civil Suit No. 496 of 2023 which was dismissed by the Assistant Registrar after hearing. Civil Suit Number 496 of 2023 is pending hearing before Hon. Justice Namanya Bernard.

I am alive to the fact that the subject matter in Civil Suit No. 303 of 2022 is the same as 15 in Civil Suit No. 496 of 2023. However, the applicant in the current application has not proved that he is an aggrieved person in accordance with section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules. According to those two legal provisions, an aggrieved person is one who has suffered a legal grievance arising from a decree or order of court. See the case *of Ladak Abdulla Mohammed Hussein versus Isingoma*

- 20 *Kakiiza and 2 other SCCA 8 of 1995.* The applicant deposed that he inherited the suit land from his grandfather and therefore he is aggrieved by the consent entered into by the respondents. The applicant did not produce any documentary evidence to prove his relationship with the deceased registered proprietor. In order to prove that he was an aggrieved person, the applicant should have produced letters of administration in respect - 25 of the estate of the late Mukayili Lugolobi. MukayiliLugolobi used to be the registered proprietor of the suit land and the applicant should have proved the nexus between him and the late Mukayili Lugolobi to prove that he was an aggrieved person. The term legal grievance was defined in *Exparte Side Botham (1880) 14 Ch. D 458 at 465* to men a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongly deprived him - 30 of something or wrongfully affected his title. Since the applicant had not proved the nexus between him and the late Mukayili Lugolobi, he does not quality to be an aggrieved person.

Counsel for the applicant equally cited the provisions of Order 46 rules 1& 8 while applying for review. As noted in *Re-Nakivubo Chemists (U) Limited (1979) HCB 12,* Manyindo J

Page **14** of **16**

- 5 (as he then was), held that there are three cases in which a review of a Judgment or orders is allowed and those are; - a. *Discovery of a new and important matter of evidence previously overlooked by excusable misfortune.* - b. *Some mistake apparent on the face of the record.* - 10 c. *For any other sufficient reasons, but expression 'sufficient' should be read as meaning sufficiently analogous to (a) and (b) above.*

## *See also Tanitalia Ltd versus Mawa Handels An Stalt (1957) EA 215.*

I have perused the applicant's pleadings and his counsel's submissions and I agree with counsel for the respondents that the applicant never made any efforts to prove any of 15 these grounds.

In the instant case, it is the applicant's contention that the respondents colluded and fraudulently entered into the impugned consent well aware of the applicant's claims to the suit land. According to paragraph 20 of the affidavit in support, the applicant deposed that the respondents fraudulently and under collusion entered the purported consent in order

20 to defeat the applicant and his siblings' interests on the suit land. These are matters which should be dealt with in Civil Suit No. 496 of 2023 pending before Justice Namanya Bernard.

Given the above reasons, the applicant's application is dismissed and I order as follows;

- 25 a. The application is dismissed. - b. Costs of the application are awarded to the respondents.

## **I so order**

Ruling delivered at High Court, Land Division via ECCMIS on this **8 th day of November, 2024.**

5 **Immaculate Busingye Byaruhanga**

**Judge**