Courts will not interfere with expert valuations in matrimonial or property disputes absent of a “manifest error”: High Court at Wakiso overrules application for review of valuation report.
- Waboga David
- Nov 7
- 4 min read
Courts will not interfere with expert valuations in matrimonial or property disputes absent a “manifest error”: High Court at Wakiso overrules application for review of valuation report in matrimonial case.
Facts
Following the dissolution of the marriage between Samuel Basimakyi Muhima (Applicant) and Milly Nyakahuma Muhima (Respondent), the parties entered into a consent judgment on 23rd November 2023, distributing the matrimonial property at Kabulengwa, Nansana Municipality, allocating 60% to the Respondent and 40% to the Applicant.
A Government Valuer was jointly appointed, whose valuation report dated 17 July 2024 assessed the property at UGX 493,400,000.
Dissatisfied, the Applicant moved court under Section 33 of the Judicature Act, Sections 82(a) and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Order 46 Rule 1(b) and Order 52 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking review of the valuation report, alleging it was “excessive,” “unjustified,” and that the valuer failed to consider the unfinished nature of the house or request the architectural plan.
Issues
Whether the Applicant qualified as a “person aggrieved” under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rule 1 CPR.
Whether the Application met the threshold for review on account of an “error apparent on the face of the record.”
Whether the valuation report could be reviewed independently of the decree or consent judgment.
Whether the Court was functus officio or the Applicant should be denied audience for alleged contempt.
The court addressed preliminary objections first, then reframed the merits around:
Whether the Applicant qualifies as an "aggrieved person" under Section 82 CPA and Order 46 Rule 1 CPR?
Whether the grounds meet the legal threshold for review?
Submissions
Submissions Applicant's :
The valuation was excessive, not reflective of market value (UGX 200–250 million).
The valuer failed to obtain the architectural plan, causing methodological error.
The Court should order a re-valuation by another valuer from Wakiso District.
Invoked the Court’s review powers to correct a “manifest error.”
For the Respondent
The valuation was conducted by a Government Valuer after both parties failed to agree on a private valuer.
The Applicant attended the inspection and raised no objection.
The Applicant offered no counter-report or expert opinion to contradict the Government Valuer.
The Application was time-barred, frivolous, and an abuse of process.
The Court was functus officio, having fully determined the matter by consent.
The Applicant, being in contempt of prior court orders, should not be heard until purging that contempt.
Legal Representation
Applicant: M/s Lubega-Matovu & Co. Advocates (Mr. Fred Ssemugenyi)
Respondent: Mangeni Law Chambers & Co. Advocates (Mr. Joseph Alpha Bwire)
Court’s Findings
1️⃣ Preliminary Objection: Denial of Audience Due to Contempt
The Respondent’s objection that the Applicant should not be heard due to contempt of court was overruled.
“The principle that a contemnor should not be heard until they have purged themselves of contempt is well established. However, this principle is not absolute... every person has the non-derogable right to be heard.”
The Court held that hearing the matter served the interests of justice under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2️⃣ Preliminary Objection: Application as Abuse of Process
The objection was dismissed.
“Whether the Application discloses sufficient grounds for review... are matters that necessarily call for evaluation of affidavit evidence... These issues cannot be conclusively determined at this preliminary stage.”
3️⃣ Preliminary Objection: Court Being Functus Officio
The Court rejected this objection, clarifying that review jurisdiction is a statutory exception to functus officio.
“A review is not an appeal or re-hearing... The jurisdiction to review is an exception to the functus officio rule.”
4️⃣ Substantive Issue: Whether the Application Met Grounds for Review
The Court reaffirmed that valuation reports, being expert opinions, are not easily impeached unless the Applicant shows manifest error or departure from established valuation principles.
Citing Aya Investments (U) Ltd v. Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa (Misc. Application No. 2908 of 2023), the Court held:
“Unless it is shown that some well-accepted principles of valuation have been departed from without reason... or that the valuer adopted a demonstrably wrong approach, the Court cannot interfere with the valuation of an expert.”
Justice Lamuno agreed that valuation is not an exact science, and differences in opinion do not amount to an error on the face of the record.
The Applicant’s dissatisfaction with the value was deemed subjective and unsupported by contrary expert evidence.
“There is a real distinction between a mere erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record... An error requiring long reasoning or expert debate cannot be said to be self-evident.”
Holding
The Court dismissed the Application for Review for lack of merit, holding that:
The Applicant failed to establish any manifest error or procedural flaw in the Government Valuer’s report.
The valuation report was prepared in compliance with professional standards.
Mere disagreement with a valuation does not constitute an error on the face of the record.
The Application was an improper attempt to re-litigate a settled matter under the consent judgment.
Costs were awarded to the Respondent.
Key Takeaways
Review Jurisdiction Is Narrow
Courts will not entertain review applications based on mere dissatisfaction with valuation outcomes or perceived excessiveness.
Valuation Reports Are Expert Opinions
Unless manifest errors, fraud, or departures from accepted methodology are proven, courts will not substitute expert valuations with litigants’ subjective estimates.
Functus Officio Exception
A court may review its own decree or order under Section 82 CPA and Order 46 CPR, but not re-evaluate underlying factual assessments like valuation figures.
Contempt Does Not Automatically Bar Audience
The right to be heard remains non-derogable, though courts retain discretion to weigh justice against willful disobedience.
Consent Judgments Are Binding
Parties cannot selectively challenge implementation steps (like valuation) without attacking the underlying consent itself.
As Justice Lamuno reaffirmed,
“Mathematical precision and exactitude are not attributes of property valuation; at best, valuation is an opinion based on technical expertise and prevailing market factors.”
Read the full case
.jpg)
Comments