HIGH COURT HAS AFFIRMED THAT A REVIEWED ORDER CANNOT BE RE-REVIEWED—THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR'S DECISION CAN ONLY BE CHALLENGED BY APPEAL AND NOT THROUGH AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 98 OF THE CPA.

The High Court has dismissed an application that sought to set aside a Deputy Registrar’s order, ruling that the correct procedure was an appeal under Order 50, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Justice Lubega upheld the two preliminary objections raised by the Respondent, leading to the dismissal of the application. emphasizing that:

• The Deputy Registrar’s decision could only be challenged by appeal and not through an application under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act.

• He further ruled that a reviewed order cannot be re-reviewed, reinforcing that the correct recourse was an appeal.

Brief Facts of the Case

The Respondent filed Miscellaneous Application No. 331 of 2023 seeking to vary or set aside a court order issued by the Deputy Registrar on October 13, 2023, in Miscellaneous Application No. 318 of 2023.

The Deputy Registrar entertained the application and, on November 21, 2023, varied the earlier order.

The Applicants contended that the Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction to vary his own order, making his actions illegal.

The Applicants further contended that the original order being varied arose from a consent reached by the parties and their lawyers, not from an error or mistaken impression.

The Respondent opposed the application, arguing that the Deputy Registrar had only varied, not reviewed, the order, and that the Applicants failed to raise the issue of jurisdiction during the initial hearing.

The Respondent also maintained that varying the order maintained the status quo and did not cause any miscarriage of justice.

Determination of the Court

Justice Lubega upheld both preliminary objections raised by the Respondent, leading to the dismissal of the application. The key considerations in the court's determination were as follows:

1. Improper Invocation of Inherent Jurisdiction

   • The Applicants sought to set aside an order issued by the deputy registrar using Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 52 Rules 1, 2, and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

   • The court found that Order 50 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides a clear remedy for an aggrieved party: an appeal to the High Court.

   • It was determined that Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act applies only in the absence of an express provision governing a matter. Since Order 50 Rule 8 specifically provides for appealing a registrar’s decision, the Applicants should have followed this procedure rather than invoking the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

   • Referencing the precedent in Anatolia Enterprises Ltd v. Tweyambe Esau t/a Crane Force Auctioneers HCMA No. 210 of 2015 affirms the interpretation that inherent powers of court cannot be invoked when a specific legal recourse exists.

     
     

2. Jurisdictional Limitations of the Deputy Registrar

   • The court found that the deputy registrar varied an order issued in Misc. Application No. 318 of 2023 despite lacking jurisdiction to do so.

   • However, the correct course of action to challenge such a decision was through an appeal, not an application to set aside the order under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

   • The Applicants' claim that the deputy registrar's actions amounted to an illegality did not exempt them from following the prescribed procedure for appeal.

     
     

3. Prohibition of Successive Review Applications

   • The Respondent contended that a party cannot seek to review an already reviewed order, and the proper recourse was an appeal.

   • The court agreed with this argument, reinforcing that review applications are not meant to be used in a way that bypasses the right of appeal.

   • Since the deputy registrar had already varied the order, any challenge should have been through an appeal as stipulated under Order 50 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

     
     

4. Ruling

   • Justice Lubega upheld both preliminary objections.

   • The court dismissed the application for being filed under the incorrect provisions of the law.

   • The Applicants were directed to pursue their remedy through an appeal under Order 50 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

   • The court awarded costs to the Respondents.

     
     

Rule of Law

The ruling reaffirmed the following legal principles:

1. Hierarchy of Legal Provisions

   • When an express legal provision exists for a specific course of action, it must be followed. Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be invoked when Order 50 Rule 8 provides a clear appellate mechanism.

     
     

2. Jurisdictional Limitations of the Deputy Registrar

   • A deputy registrar lacks jurisdiction to review or vary their own orders unless expressly authorized by law.

     
     

3. Procedural Adherence in Legal Challenges

   • Parties must challenge decisions through the legally prescribed processes (i.e., appeal instead of review or inherent jurisdiction) to avoid abuse of court process.

     
     

4. Finality of Reviews

   • Once an order has been reviewed, the proper remedy for an aggrieved party is an appeal, not another review application.

     
     

Conclusion

The decision reinforces that where a statute provides a clear remedy, litigants must follow that prescribed route rather than invoking the court’s inherent powers.

Khainza 4 Others v Mweru 2025 UGHC 122 (19 March 2025).pdf

Download PDF • 3.06MB