Court name
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Judgment date
15 January 2018

Kiriri Cotton Co. Ltd & Anor v Katto & 3 Ors (Miscellaneous Application-2017/) [2018] UGHCCD 9 (15 January 2018);

Cite this case
[2018] UGHCCD 9
Short summary:

Civil Procedure, Actions and applications

Coram
Masalu-Musene, J

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGHC OURT OF UGANDA

AT MPIGI

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.   258 OF 2017

  1. KIRIRI COTTON CO. LTD
  2. RAJANIKANT PATEL :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANTS

VERSUS

 

  1. PATRICK KATTO
  2. EMMANUEL KATTO
  3. JOHN KATTO
  4. GEORGE KATTO ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENTS
  5. Administrators of the estate of the late Thomas Lyamulemye Katto)

 

 

BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE WILSON AMSALU MUSENE

 

RULING

This   was an application under Section  33 of the  judicature Act, Sections  82 , 98 and 99 of the  Civil Procedure Act and Order  46 rules 2 and  8 of the Civil procedure rules.

 

The Applicants were Kiriri cotton Co. ltd and Rajanikant Patel, represented by M/S Wetaka, Kibirango & Co. Advocates, while the Respondents, George Katto and  3 others were represented by M/s  Okello Oryem & Co. Advocates.  The Applicant was seeking orders that the order of this Court  dated 30.3.2017 as well as execution proceedings thereon be set aside, and costs of the application.

 

Mr. Andrew Wettaka for the applicants submitted that the applicants have since 1934  been lessees on the land in question comprised in LRV 138 Folio 1 and LRV 66 Folio 21 at Kiriri Measuring 166 acres and  six acres respectively.  He added that when they applied to be registered as proprietors under mailo tenure,  under  application No. 78 of 2015, the application as dismissed with costs.  And that an order dated 2.6.2017  was taken out, containing terms inconsonance with the ruling.

 

Counsel added that subsequently, on 3010.2017, another order was taken out with terms (b) and (c), to the effect that applicants be evicted.  He added that those were not the terms of the Court’s ruling hence  the application to set aside.

 

In reply, Mr. Odyang Rogers submitted that the application s un called for as it re-ignites an already concluded matter and is res-judicata. 

He added that the applicants are in contempt  as per paragraphs 5,6,7,8 and 11 of the affidavit in reply.

It was further stated that when this Court ruled that the 2nd  Applicant  could not be registered as a transferee of the  mailo interest ,the 1st Applicant went on to have his name registered in the lease interest.  Counsel  for the Respondents further submitted that the stay of the applicants on the land is illegal and that the subsequent registration of lease hold interest be cancelled.  He also  prayed for compensation of UGX 50,000,000/=.

 

I have  carefully studied the pleadings on record int his application, and considered the submissions on both sides.

 

Section 82 of the  Civil Procedure Act provides for a Review.  A litigant or any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of the court  is entitled to apply to the Court which passed the decree or order to review the same.  And in Orient Bank Ltd  versus Zaabwe & another, SCCA NO. 17 of 2007,it was held that the court would  apply the  slip rule  where it  is satisfied that it is giving effect to the intention of the court at the time when  judgment was delivered.    In Misc. Cause no. 078 of 2015 the Applicants sought  a vesting  order in respect  of mailo  interest over the land in question.  This court  in summary dismissed the application for vesting order of the mailo interest.  The  application was dismissed.  I therefore agree with the submissions of Counsel for the applicant that the issue of lease was not in picture in the application  No. 78 of 2015  which dealt exclusively with mailo interest.  This is contrary to paragraphs  5 and 6 of George Katto’s  affidavit that both lease and mail interest were considered in Misc. Cause no. 078 of 2015.

 

And it was counsel   for the applicants,  M/S  Okello Oryem & Co. Advocates  who  extracted the earlier order of 2.6.2017.

 

It was therefore not proper on their part to extract another order incorporating eviction of the applicants dated 2.10.2017. That was a slip on the part of this court to sign the second order dated 30.10.2017  arising  out of busy schedule.  The proper  order in Misc. Cause No. 078 of 2015 was the earlier  one dated 2.6.2017.  if the Respondents are aggrieved that the subsequent  Registration of the lease hold was not proper, then they have a new cause of action against the applicants and the Registrar of titles.  Otherwise as of now, it is the order of 2.6.2017  that reflects the ruling of this court.

 

I accordingly do hereby exercise this courts powers under Section 33 of the judicature Act and Sections 82 and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to allow this application, and set aside the second order of this Court  dated 30.10.2017.

 

I exercise the same discretion to order   that each party  meets their own costs.

 

………………………..

W. Masalu  Musene

Judge

18/12/2017

 

 

 

18/12/2017:

Mr. Sewanonda  Isaac  for the applicant present.

Second  Applicant present

Mr. Moloi  Ivan, holding brief for Okello Oryem for Respondent.

1st Respondent present.

Betty  Lunkuse, court clerk present.

 

Court:    Ruling  read in chambers. 

 

………………………..

W. Masalu Musene

Judge

18/12/2017.