|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 2020 |
|
|
Review dismissed where applicant merely challenged the court's reasoning and failed to show new evidence or a patent record error.
Civil Procedure – Review – Order XLII Rule 1 and Section 78 CPC – review limited to newly discovered evidence or error apparent on the face of the record. Review is not a substitute for appeal – disagreement with judicial reasoning or discretionary decisions (extension of time) is not a ground for review. Error apparent on the face of the record must be obvious and patent, not established by extended argument. Allegations about execution or stay of execution do not by themselves convert an appealable issue into a reviewable one.
|
23 September 2020 |
|
Plaintiff established ownership of eight acres; third parties' entry was trespass; unpleaded damages claim dismissed.
Land law – ownership – sale by estate administratrix; evidentiary weight of sale agreement, village minutes and Certificate of Customary Right of Occupancy. Civil procedure – ex parte proceedings – burden of proof remains on plaintiff despite defendants' non‑appearance. Tort – trespass – unauthorised entry onto land in possession of another. Remedies – declaratory and injunctive relief granted; unpleaded damages cannot be awarded.
|
21 September 2020 |
|
Applicant’s ownership claim fails; unappealed tribunal judgment, lawful mortgage and bona fide purchase defeat challenge.
Land — ownership dispute; effect of unappealed Tribunal judgment on ownership; validity of mortgage executed by registered owner; power of sale and auctioneer procedures; protection of bona fide purchaser under Land Act; burden to prove fraud or misrepresentation.
|
21 September 2020 |
|
Court dismissed unprosecuted preliminary objection, granted extension for sickness, set aside dismissal and restored the appeal.
Civil procedure – compliance with court orders – failure to file counter-affidavit and written submissions – preliminary objection dismissed for non-prosecution. Extension of time – sufficient cause – sickness supported by medical chits accepted as ground for extension. Setting aside dismissal order and restoration of appeal where delay is justified and application is unchallenged.
|
21 September 2020 |
|
Leave to appeal granted because an arguable issue of res judicata and Ward Tribunal jurisdiction warrants Court of Appeal review.
Leave to appeal — discretionary leave to appeal to Court of Appeal; extension of time — sufficiency of reasons, technical delay (delay in obtaining drawn order); illegality as ground for extension/leave — must point to specific point of law; res judicata and jurisdiction of Ward Tribunal — arguable issue warranting appellate determination; prohibition on re‑litigation of matters already decided below.
|
21 September 2020 |
|
High Court proper forum for suits involving government officers; earlier 90-day notice remains valid absent statutory expiry.
Land law; jurisdiction – pecuniary limits versus suits against government; Government Proceedings Act – section 7 (suits against government to be in High Court); statutory 90-days' notice of intention to sue – validity where Act silent on lifespan.
|
21 September 2020 |
|
Failure to file court‑ordered written submissions amounted to non‑appearance and justified dismissal for want of prosecution.
Civil procedure – Failure to file court‑ordered written submissions – tantamount to non‑appearance – dismissal for want of prosecution – costs in the cause.
|
21 September 2020 |
|
An appeal was struck out as incompetent because necessary trial parties, including the mortgagor spouse, were omitted.
Civil procedure – Appeal maintainability – omission of necessary parties – where a dispute involves a mortgage over a purported matrimonial home, the mortgagor spouse and other trial defendants are necessary parties; omission renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
20 September 2020 |
|
Refusal to extend time was upheld because the appellant failed to prove sufficient cause with required particulars.
Extension of time – sufficient cause – applicant must plead and prove specific facts showing cause of delay. Affidavit requirements – necessity of particulars (name of clerk, dates) to link clerk’s conduct to delay. Procedural technicalities and lay representation – being a layperson or procedural irregularity does not automatically justify extension of time. Discretionary refusal – absence of factual foundation justifies DLHT refusal to extend time.
|
18 September 2020 |
|
Court struck out incompetent ward suit and nullified revisional decision for lack of ward records and locus standi.
Land law — locus standi — administrator’s letters — competence of suit; Procedural irregularities — absence of ward tribunal record and case number — nullification of lower tribunal decisions; Revisional powers — quashing erroneous orders and striking out incompetent proceedings; Duty to investigate missing court records and possible disciplinary measures.
|
18 September 2020 |
|
High Court certified the Ward Tribunal quorum (jurisdiction) for appeal, rejecting the fair‑hearing complaint as factual.
Land procedure – Certification for appeal from Ward Tribunal – distinction between questions of law and questions of fact for certification; Jurisdiction – Ward Tribunal quorum as a jurisdictional issue that may be raised at any stage; Appellate practice – High Court’s duty to critically evaluate and not perfunctorily certify points of law.
|
18 September 2020 |
|
An applicant's delay caused by counsel's negligence does not constitute good cause for extension of time to appeal.
Extension of time – "good cause" test: account for delay, diligence, non-inordinate delay, important point of law; Illegality as ground for extension – must be apparent on the face of the record and pleaded in affidavit/grounds of appeal; Appeals from ward tribunals – CPC requirements to attach judgment copies do not apply; Advocate's negligence/error – ordinarily not sufficient ground for extension of time; Procedural compliance – written submissions held to be timely.
|
18 September 2020 |
|
Combining extensions to file a notice of appeal and to seek leave to appeal is incompetent and was struck out.
Civil procedure – Appeals – Application for extension of time – Whether extension to file notice of appeal and extension to file application for leave to appeal may be combined in one chamber summons – Notice of appeal (or extension) is a condition precedent to leave application – Omnibus prayers render application incompetent and liable to be struck out. Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap 141 s.11(1) – Proper provision for extension of time.
|
16 September 2020 |
|
Leave to appeal granted where application under section 47(2) was properly filed and respondents conceded the prayer.
Land law – Leave to appeal – Application under section 47(2) Land Disputes Courts Act – Properly before court – Effect of respondents' concession – Costs in the course.
|
14 September 2020 |
|
The applicant's request to lift attachment was dismissed as it sought re‑determination and would reverse a prior execution order.
Civil procedure – Section 38 CPC – jurisdiction to determine questions arising in execution; subsequent applications filed during pendency of earlier applications; re‑determination and abuse of process – application overtaken by events after earlier dismissal allowing execution.
|
14 September 2020 |
|
Leave to appeal refused where proposed grounds were new and failed to raise an arguable point of law.
Land law — Leave to appeal under s.47(1) LDCA — discretionary grant where arguable point of law or disturbing features — new grounds not previously raised cannot justify leave — procedural complaints and factual issues raised for first time do not, without more, merit Court of Appeal intervention.
|
14 September 2020 |
|
Extension of time to seek certification on point of law refused for failure to account for 171 days' delay.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – application for certificate on point of law – distinction between leave to appeal (s.47(1)) and certificate on point of law (s.47(2)). Requirement to account for delay – Lyamuya Construction test – unexplained 171 days' delay fatal to application. Application dismissed with costs.
|
14 September 2020 |
|
Leave to appeal refused where alleged defects were factual, unraised below, or merely clerical; no point of law certified.
Land law; leave to appeal — certification of point of law — ex-parte proceedings and remedy to set aside; administration of deceased estate — locus to defend deceased property; execution of decree — transfer to non-party; clerical errors in judgment — remediable, not point of law.
|
14 September 2020 |
|
Applicant granted six‑month interim injunction restraining respondent from invading or evicting at disputed premises pending main suit.
Civil procedure – interim injunction – principles in Atilio v Mbowe: prima facie case, irreparable injury, balance of convenience must be satisfied cumulatively. Land law – disputed auction and transfer of property – interim relief to preserve status quo pending main suit. Equitable relief – protection against eviction and interference with possession while substantive rights are adjudicated.
|
14 September 2020 |
|
Inadequate medical evidence and failure to account for delay justify refusal to extend time to seek certification of a point of law.
Civil Procedure — Extension of time — Application under s.14 Limitation Act and s.95 CPC — Applicant must account for all days of delay. Evidence — Medical report must particularize admission/discharge and nature/progression of illness to justify delay. Discretion — Lack of diligence or negligence defeats application for extension.
|
14 September 2020 |
|
Applicant failed to account for delay and offered unauthenticated text messages; extension of time to file leave to appeal was refused.
Civil procedure – Application for extension of time under section 11(1) AJA – discretion to grant/extensions only on sufficient cause; applicant must account for every day of delay (Lyamuya guidelines). Evidence – Printouts of text messages – necessity for authentication and certification by service provider; informal texts insufficient to constitute formal settlement in court proceedings. Procedural conduct – Failure to file counter-affidavit or written submissions does not automatically amount to concession in extension applications.
|
14 September 2020 |
|
Court reviewed and set aside final disposal of a suit as to a non‑settling defendant who was condemned unheard.
Civil procedure — Review under section 78(1)(b) and Order XLII Rule 1(1)(b) — Apparent error on face of record — Deed of settlement disposing suit only between some parties — Right to be heard — Setting aside final disposal as to non-settling party.
|
14 September 2020 |
|
Delay in receiving certified copies and applicant's lay status warranted extension of time to file appeal.
Extension of time – Land Disputes Courts Act s38(1) – Delay in obtaining certified copies of judgment – sufficient cause – expunging evasive submissions – ex parte proceedings.
|
14 September 2020 |
|
A land court lacks jurisdiction over disputes arising from unresolved probate and administration of an estate.
Jurisdiction – Land Division vs. probate courts – disputes over estate administration must be determined by probate/administration courts where estate accounts are unresolved. Preliminary objections – must raise pure points of law apparent on pleadings (Mukisa, Lyamuya). Probate law – administrator’s powers and resolution of misappropriation claims. Competence – where probate court is still seized, courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate title disputes arising from the estate.
|
13 September 2020 |
|
Non‑compliance with mandatory requirement for assessors to give opinions in parties' presence vitiates tribunal proceedings; retrial ordered.
Land disputes — Assessors — Mandatory requirement for assessors to give opinion in presence of parties under s.23 Cap. 216 and reg.19(2) G.N.174/2003 — Failure to afford opportunity vitiates proceedings — Quoting written assessor opinions does not cure irregularity — Revisional powers to nullify and order retrial.
|
11 September 2020 |
|
An application for a representative suit is incompetent where the supporting affidavit lacks signed consent from the persons to be represented.
Representative suits – Order I r.8(1) CPC – affidavit requirement – list of beneficiaries must show signatures/countersignatures evidencing consent – absence of consent renders representative application incompetent – preliminary objections dispositive.
|
11 September 2020 |
|
Tribunal rightly executed a decree identifying Plot No.41 Block P; technical defects and miscitation did not invalidate execution.
Civil Procedure – Decree contents – Order XX Rule 9 – description of immovable property required; decree valid where property identified by plot and block. Execution – delay/abandonment – party alleging abandonment must prove it; settlement attempts and scheduling negate abandonment. Overriding objective – technical objections may be considered and decided collectively to cure non‑prejudicial defects. Omnibus prayers – execution and costs may be combined; not inherently illegal (Order XXI Rule 10). Ex parte judgments – may be executed where no successful challenge has been pursued. Procedural irregularity – miscitation of statutes not fatal absent prejudice; limitation bars tardy challenges (s.41 Land Disputes Courts Act).
|
11 September 2020 |
|
Whether an administrator's land recovery claim is time-barred depends on adverse possession and accrual under the Limitation Act.
Land law – Limitation – s.9(1) LLA: deemed accrual at death where deceased in possession; s.33(1): adverse possession required for accrual; s.35 does not exclude time between death and grant of administration; s.25(1) excludes only time spent obtaining probate/administration; factual disputes on adverse possession require trial.
|
11 September 2020 |
|
Failure to attach the decree to a memorandum of appeal renders the appeal incompetent and subject to being struck out.
Civil Procedure – Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC – Mandatory requirement to attach decree to memorandum of appeal; Appeals from District Land and Housing Tribunal – s.41 Land Disputes Courts Act – applicability of CPC; Preliminary objection – incompetence of appeal for omission to attach decree; Appeal struck out with costs.
|
11 September 2020 |
|
Delay awaiting copies of a tribunal ruling can constitute good cause for extension of time to file an appeal.
Land law — Extension of time to appeal — Section 41(2) Land Disputes Courts Act — Computation of limitation — Period awaiting copies of judgment/decree excluded under the Law of Limitation Act — Good cause established where applicant lacked control over obtaining judgment copy.
|
11 September 2020 |
|
Appellant failed to prove ownership; respondent's sale agreement and evidence upheld and appeal dismissed, each party to bear own costs.
Land law – ownership disputes over village land – burden of proof; possession by clearing bush versus registered/documentary sale agreement; admissibility and presence of documents in tribunal record; appellate review of ward tribunal findings; effect of delay in initiating proceedings.
|
11 September 2020 |
|
Absence of assessors’ recorded and read opinions vitiates tribunal proceedings; judgment quashed and trial nullified.
Land disputes — Assessors’ participation — Requirement that each assessor give written opinion and that opinions be on record and read to parties before judgment — Failure to record/read assessors’ opinions is a fundamental irregularity vitiating proceedings.
|
8 September 2020 |
|
Failure to obtain individual written opinions of tribunal assessors under regulation 19(2) vitiates proceedings and warrants retrial.
Land disputes — District Land and Housing Tribunal — Assessors' participation — Regulation 19(2) GN.174/2003 — requirement for each assessor to give individual written opinion before judgment — joint opinion/absence of written opinions invalid — proceedings vitiated and retrial ordered.
|
8 September 2020 |
|
An appeal against a bill of costs is incompetent; the proper remedy is a reference under the Advocate Remuneration Order.
Advocate Remuneration Order, 2015 – bills of costs – Order 7 requires reference to High Court judge by chamber summons and affidavit within 21 days. Procedural competence – appeal by memorandum against bill of costs is misconceived; statutory reference is the proper remedy. Incompetent proceedings – failure to follow prescribed procedure renders appeal liable to be struck out with costs.
|
7 September 2020 |
|
Reference dismissed: new jurisdictional and substantive complaints not raised at taxation cannot overturn the Taxing Master’s award.
Civil procedure – Taxation of bills of costs – Whether taxation is barred by pending appeal – Notice of appeal withdrawn prior to taxation negates jurisdictional bar. Civil procedure – Reference against Taxing Master – New issues not raised at taxation cannot be raised on reference. Costs – Discretion of Taxing Master – General complaints without itemized challenge insufficient to upset taxation award.
|
7 September 2020 |
|
Appellant proved allocation and payment; tribunal decision set aside and appellant declared lawful owner.
Land law – allocation of village land; proof of payment and allocation – credibility of oral evidence (village secretary and council member); failure to produce documentary evidence of prior ownership; appellate review of tribunal findings; equitable contribution for social development fees and award of costs.
|
7 September 2020 |
|
The applicant proved allocation and payment; tribunal’s contrary finding was unwarranted and the appeal was allowed.
Land law – allocation and proof of payment – credibility of oral testimony by village officials – uncorroborated family ownership claims insufficient to defeat allocation. Evidence – assessment of oral evidence and inconsistencies in defence – burden on respondent to prove competing ownership. Relief – setting aside tribunal’s judgment and declaring lawful ownership; contribution to village social development fee.
|
7 September 2020 |
|
Court adjusted a decree by consent and ordered the Land Registry transfer entry struck off, reverting title to the prior owner.
Civil Procedure – Order XXI, Rule 2(1) & (2) – Recording payment or adjustment of a decree where decree-holder certifies or judgment debtor applies; court to record adjustment.* Land law – correction of Land Register – striking off entry following court-ordered adjustment of decree and reversion of title.* Execution – adjustment of decree by consent and effect on registered title.
|
7 September 2020 |
|
An invitee cannot acquire title by adverse possession where they fail to prove ownership; appeal dismissed with costs.
Land law – adverse possession – invitee cannot acquire ownership by mere occupation; Evidence – burden on balance of probabilities (Hemed Said principle); Civil procedure – no new evidence on appeal, annexures expunged; Appeals – procedural irregularities not raised at trial cannot be entertained on second appeal; Filing – limited leniency for late submissions by lay litigant during COVID-19.
|
7 September 2020 |
|
Court granted extension to file reference, finding 13‑day delay excusable and good cause shown.
Civil procedure — extension of time; 'good cause' discretionary and relative; withdrawal with leave to refile to correct defects; 13‑day delay not inordinate; applicant given 30 days to file reference; costs to follow cause.
|
7 September 2020 |
|
Applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for extension of time to appeal; application dismissed with costs.
Land law – extension of time to appeal under section 41(2) LDCA; sufficiency of cause required for extension; illness and alleged illegality as grounds. Civil procedure – discretion to grant extension: factors include length of delay, reasons, and prejudice (Mumello; Henry Leonard Maeda). Evidence – need to account for each day of delay and provide documentary support for claimed obstacles; failure is fatal (Lyamuya). Abuse of process – repeated incompetent applications and unexplained gaps may justify refusal of extension.
|
7 September 2020 |
|
Lay client's extension of time granted where advocate's negligence caused delay; 45 days allowed to file appeal.
Land law — extension of time to file appeal under s.38(1) LDCA — negligence of advocate — lay client not automatically penalised — duty to account for delay — prospects of success — costs to follow cause.
|
7 September 2020 |
|
Applicant granted 30 days to appeal; late respondent submissions filed without leave were expunged.
Civil procedure – extension of time to file appeal – technical delay where notice of appeal initially lodged in time – extension appropriate. Procedure – compliance with court-ordered timeframes for written submissions – late submissions filed without leave are expunged. Precedent – Fortunatus Masha distinction between technical and real delays applied.
|
4 September 2020 |
|
Suit struck out for incompetence because administratix lacked letters of administration when instituting proceedings.
Civil procedure – locus standi – Administrators and letters of administration – Authority to sue must exist when suit is instituted; post-filing grant of letters cannot retrospectively cure incompetence; preliminary objection disposing of suit.
|
4 September 2020 |
|
Revision under section 43(1)(b) LDC Act was proper and the application was timely under the Limitation Act.
Land — Revision jurisdiction — Proper procedure to challenge Taxing Officer's orders: section 43(1)(b) LDC Act for pending bill rulings; Order 7(1) Advocates Remuneration Order for decisions of the Taxing Officer — Limitation: Item 21 Part III Limitation Act (60 days) applicable where no specific period provided.
|
4 September 2020 |
|
Failure to have assessors give and read their opinions vitiates tribunal proceedings and warrants quashing the judgment.
Administrative law – Land Disputes Courts Act s.23(2) and Regulation 19(2) – requirement that assessors give written opinions and those opinions be read to parties before judgment; Procedure – failure of assessors to participate or have opinions read is a fatal irregularity vitiating tribunal proceedings; Revisionary powers – s.43(1)(b) invoked to nullify proceedings and quash judgment.
|
4 September 2020 |
|
Failure to plead mandatory particulars of fraud is fatal; plaint struck out and amendment refused.
Civil Procedure – pleadings – particulars of fraud – Order VI r.17, Civil Procedure Code Cap.33 R.E.2019 – mandatory requirement – non‑compliance fatal – amendment not permitted after point raised – overriding objective not available to cure.
|
4 September 2020 |
|
Failure to serve a statutory notice specifying the basis of claim under s.6(2) renders a suit against the Government incompetent.
Government Proceedings Act, s.6(2) – mandatory statutory notice – claimant must specify basis of claim and wrong alleged against Government/officer. Compliance with notice – deficiency in specifying nature/basis of claim renders suit premature. Non-joinder/necessary party – omission or defective impleading of a necessary party is fatal to the suit. Procedural maintainability – failure to comply with statutory pre-suit requirements leads to striking out the suit.
|
4 September 2020 |
|
Leave to appeal refused where High Court addressed alleged errors and statutory remedies for rectification/compensation exist.
Civil procedure — Leave to appeal to Court of Appeal — requirement of arguable/meritorious appeal or point of law of general importance. Land law — Rectification of land register — remedy for affected parties under Land Act s.100 and Land Registration Act (indemnification and appeal). Administrative action — Registrar of Titles executing High Court order — proper basis for rectification. Procedural fairness — alleged condemnation unheard — adequacy of remedy and whether it vitiates entire proceedings.
|
4 September 2020 |
|
Extension of time granted to challenge land revocation due to lack of notice and demonstrated diligence.
Land law – judicial review – extension of time to file certiorari – service of notices and revocation documents – accounting for delay – Lyamuya criteria – misplaced filing and advocate follow-up accepted as diligence.
|
4 September 2020 |