Ssempijja v Gakyalo (Miscellaneous Application 2682 of 2023) [2024] UGHCLD 166 (18 June 2024)

# **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (LAND DIVISION) MISC APPLICATION NO 2682 OF 2023 (ARISING FROM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 33 OF 2023) (ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO.014 OF 2022 OF THE CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT OF KAJJANSI AT KAJJANSI)**

**SSENPIJJA WILLIAM :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT VERSUS**

**GAKYALO FABIAN :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENTS**

# **BEFORE; HON. LADY JUSTICE NALUZZE AISHA BATALA RULING**

# *Introduction;*

- 1. The Applicant brought this application by way of notice of motion under section 82 and 83 of the Civil Procedure Act and order 46 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking for orders that; - i) The decision of the chief magistrate court vides Misc. Application No.33 of 2023 be set aside.

ii) Costs of the application be provided for.

#### *Background;*

- 2. The applicant was the plaintiff in Civil Suit No.014 of 2022 before Kajjansi magistrate court which suit was filed on the 12th 05 2022 and the respondent herein who was the defendant filed his written statement of defence to the said suit on the 24th of 02 2023. Later, the applicant herein filed Misc. Application No.33 of 2023 for amendment of his pleadings under section 100 of the civil procedure act and order 6 rules 19 of 20. - 3. On the 29th of day of June 2023, Misc. Application No.033 of 2023 was dismissed by the learned trial magistrate on grounds that the application did not meet the requirements for amendment of pleadings, being dissatisfied with the said ruling, hence this application.

### *Applicant's evidence;*

- 4. The application is supported by an affidavit deponed by the applicant which briefly states as follows; - i) That the ruling of the learned trial magistrate vide Misc. Application No.33 of 2023 was issued in controversy and the same be set aside.

- ii) That the learned trial magistrate based the ruling on false assumptions by the respondent. - iii) That it is in the interests of justice that the said application be granted.

# *Respondent's evidence;*

- 5. The application is responded to by an affidavit deponed by the respondent which briefly states as follows; - i) That the instant application is before the wrong court it doesn't disclose clear remedies. - ii) That the application was brought under the wrong law, procedure and forum. - iii) That the application is vexatious, frivolous and full of false hoods.

# *Representation;*

6. The applicant represented himself whereas the respondent was represented by Mr. Musoke Deo of Delco Advocates. Parties filed their affidavits and only the respondent filed his submissions in reply which I have considered in the determination of this application.

#### *Issues for determination;*

*i) Whether the application is properly brought before this court?*

#### *Resolution and determination of the issue;*

- 7. The remedy for Review is provided for under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act; providing that; "*Any person considering himself/herself aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Act, but from which no appeal has been preferred may apply for review of the judgement to the court which passed the decree or order.* - 8. I will draw reference to the decision in **Elias Kakooza & 6 others vs Ahaisibwe Stephen and Anor of 2022** before Justice Vincent Emmy Mugabo where he relied on the case of **Outa Levi Vs Uganda Transport Corporation [1975] HCB 353** and held that an application for review ought to be made to the judge who made it except where the said judge is no longer a member of the bench. 9. Further the civil procedure rules under Order 46 rule 2 state as - follows; "*An application for review of a decree or order of a court, upon some ground other than the discovery of the new and important matter evidence as is referred to in rule 1 of*

*this Order, or the existence of a clerical or arithmetical mistake or error apparent on the face of the decree, shall be made only to the judge who passed the decree or made the order sought to be reviewed*."

- 10. In the instant application, the applicant intends to review a ruling of the learned trial magistrate Her Worship Karungi Doreen Olga of the Chief Magistrate Court of Kajjansi at Kajjansi. - 11. Counsel for the respondent submits that the prayers sought by the applicant in the instant application cannot be granted by this honorable court since the application is brought under the wrong forum. - 12. I take note of the law under which this application is brought and the pleadings of the parties, I am of the view that this Honorable court cannot open the irregularity door by entertaining an application of this nature. I find this Application to be wrongly placed before this honorable Court as this court cannot entertain an application for review arising from orders of a Chief Magistrates Court as review can only be sought from that same court that passed the orders.

- 13. In the result, I find the instant application wrongly brought before this court and I find no need to proceed with the merits of the application. - 14. Therefore, the instant application stands dismissed with no orders as to costs.

**I SO ORDER.**

## **NALUZZE AISHA BATALA**

**JUDGE**

**18th/06/2024**