THE 
REPUBLIC 
OF 
UGANDA 


INTHE 
COURTOFAPPEALOFUGANDA(COA)AT 
KAMPALA 


CIVIL 
APPLICATION 
NUMBER 
0130 
OF 
2012 


1. 
ASIIMWE 
DIANAJACKLINE 
} 
2. 
HENRY 
MUGENYI 
APPLICANTS 
3. 
STEVEN 
SERWADDA 
Vs. 


DR 
AGGREY 
KIYINGI····································RESPONDENT

................................•••• 


BEFORE: 


HON. 
MR. 
JUSTICE. 
KENNETH 
KAKURU, 
JA 


Date: 
31st 
July 
2013 


RULING: 


This 
is 
an 
appeal 
by 
way 
of 
reference 
from 
a 
decision 
of 
The 
learned 
Assistant 
Registrar 
of 
this 
court 
to 
a 
single 
Justice 
of 
Appeal. 
There 
is 
no 
indication 
as 
under 
what 
law 
this 
appeal 
or 
reference 
has 
been 
brought. 
I 
presume 
it 
was 
brought 
under 
Rule 
110 
of 
the 
Rules 
of 
this 
court. 


The 
applicants 
in 
this 
matter 
were 
all 
the 
material 
time 
represented 
by 
Mr. 
Eric 
Muhwezi 
and 
Mr. 
Latigo 
was 
for 
the 
respondent. 
Mr. 
Muhwezi 
practices 
in 
the 
name 
and 
style 
of 
MIS 
Muhanguzi, 
Muhwezi 
& 
Co. 


1 



Advocates 
whose 
address 
is 
NIC 
building 
2nd 
floor9 
(Annex) 
Pilkington 
Road 
P. 
O. 
Box 
7456 
Kampala. 


At 
the 
hearing 
of 
this 
application, 
Mr. 
Muhwezi 
was 
absent. 
However 
one 
of 
his 
clients, 
the 
3rd 
applicant 
Mr. 
Steven 
Serwadda 
was 
present 
in 
court. 
Mr. 
Serwadda 
informed 
court 
that 
his 
counsel 
Mr. 
Eric 
Muhwezi 
was 
indisposed 
and 
applied 
for 
an 
adjournment 
on 
that 
account. 


Court 
declined 
to 
grant 
the 
adjournment 
as 
no 
sufficient 
cause 
had 
been 
shown. 


Mr. 
Serwadda 
himself 
an 
advocate 
was 
asked 
to 
proceed 
with 
the 
application 
as 
a 
party. 


Mr. 
Serwadda 
urgued 
grounds 
1 
& 
2 
of 
the 
Memorandum 
of 
Appeal 
together. 


Basically 
that 
the 
bill 
of 
costs 
was 
drawn 
and 
filed 
against 
5 
applicants 
whereas 
the 
case 
was 
at 
all 
material 
times 
against 
only 
3 
persons 
namely; 


1. 
Asiimwe 
Diana 
Jackline 
2. 
Henry 
Mugenyi 
3. 
Steven 
Serwadda 
He 
urgued 
that 
Steven 
Karangwa 
and 
the 
Commissioner 
for 
Land 
Registration 
where 
not 
parties 
to 
the 
case 
and 
should 
not 
have 
been 
included 
in 
the 
taxation 
proceedings. 


On 
the 
second 
ground, 
he 
argued 
that 
the 
respondent 
had 
committed 
contempt 
of 
this 
court 
when 
they 
refused 
to 
obey 
the 
court 
order 
in 
Miscellaneous 
Application 
Number 
135 
of 
2009 
to 
deposit 
certificates 
of 


2 



title 
in 
court 
but 
instead 
sold 
the 
two 
titles 
to 
avoid 
execution 
in 
High 
Court 
Civil 
Suit 
No.266 
of 
2009 
from 
which 
the 
taxation 
proceedings 
on 
appeal 
in 
this 
court 
eventually 
arose. 


At 
the 
hearing 
of 
this 
application, 
court 
brought 
to 
the 
attention 
of 
Mr. 
Serwadda 
the 
fact 
that 
the 
order 
of 
the 
Assistant 
Registrar 
of 
this 
court 
which 
directed 
the 
respondent 
in 
this 
matter 
Dr. 
Aggrey 
Kiyingi 
to 
deposit 
the 
said 
land 
titles 
was 
signed 
on 
23rd 
day 
of 
November 
2009. 
The 
application 
itself 
was 
heard 
on 
20th 
October 
2009.This 
was 
ascertained 
from 
the 
record 
filed 
in 
this 
court 
by 
the 
applicants. 


Court 
also 
brought 
to 
the 
attention 
of 
Mr. 
Serwadda 
the 
fact 
that 
his 
own 
Record 
of 
Reference 
at 
pages 
37 
and 
40 
contains 
copies 
of 
the 
said 
land 
titles, 
two 
of 
them. 
The 
record 
indicates 
that 
the 
said 
titles 
had 
been 
transferred 
from 
the 
names 
of 
Dr. 
Aggrey 
Kiyingi 
the 
respondent 
herein 
to 
those 
of 
one 
Mohammed 
Ssekatawa 
on 
14th 
October 
2009. 
Accordingly 
there 
is 
no 
way 
Dr. 
Kiyingi 
could 
have 
deposited 
titles 
in 
court 
which 
were 
no 
longer 
his 
property 
at 
the 
time 
when 
the 
order 
was 
made. 


Upon 
realizing 
the 
above, 
Mr. 
Serwadda 
withdrew 
ground 
2 
of 
the 
Memorandum 
of 
Reference. 


In 
reply 
Mr. 
Latigo 
learned 
counsel 
for 
the 
respondent 
urgued 
that 
the 
learned 
Assistant 
Registrar 
correctly 
dismissed 
the 
preliminary 
objection 
raised 
at 
the 
taxation 
hearing. 
The 
objection 
that 
the 
proceedings 
were 
in 
respect 
of 
5 
applicants 
yet 
the 
parties 
to 
the 
case 
were 
only 
3, 
he 
urgued 
was 
made 
without 
any 
basis. 
He 
contended 
that 
at 
all 
material 
times 
the 
parties 
to 
the 
application 
and 
appeal 
were 
five 
and 
not 
three. 


3 



He 
produced 
a 
notice 
of 
appeal 
in 
this 
matter 
to 
the 
Supreme 
Court 
that 
was 
prepared, 
drawn 
and 
filed 
by 
MIS 
Muhanguzi, 
Muhwezi 
& 
Co. 
Advocates. 


It 
indeed 
indicates 
all 
the 
five 
applicants. 


He 
also 
brought 
to 
the 
attention 
of 
court 
the 
order 
of 
this 
court 
from 
which 
the 
taxation 
proceedings 
emanated. 
The 
order 
is 
in 
respect 
of 
five 
applicants, 
this 
order 
was 
also 
drawn 
and 
filed 
by 
MIS 
Muhanguzi 
and 
Muhwezi 
Advocates 
of 
the 
same 
address. 
Both 
the 
order 
and 
the 
notice 
of 
appeal 
above 
mentioned 
were 
signed 
by 
Mr. 
Eric 
Muhwezi 
himself. 


He 
prayed 
for 
the 
dismissal 
of 
the 
application. 


Since 
the 
2nd 
ground 
of 
appeal 
was 
withdrawn, 
I 
will 
not 
dwell 
on 
It. 
suffice 
to 
say 
that 
had 
the 
advocate 
been 
more 
deligent 
he 
would 
have 
ascertained 
that 
Dr. 
Kiyingi 
had 
transferred 
the 
property 
to 
the 
thirdparty 
before 
the 
application 
was 
heard 
and 
before 
the 
order 
was 
made. 
This 
kind 
of 
laxity 
by 
an 
advocate 
is 
unacceptable 
at 
this 
court 


Ground 
one 
of 
memorandum 
of 
Reference 
as 
already 
noted 
is 
also 
untenable. 
Counsel 
for 
the 
applicant 
himself 
drew 
the 
order 
from 
which 
the 
taxation 
proceedings 
arose. 
The 
order 
named 
as 
applicants, 
5 
applicants 
and 
not 
3. 


In 
his 
own 
notice 
of 
appeal 
the 
advocate 
names 
five 
intended 
appellants. 


I 
do 
not 
understand 
how 
the 
same 
person 
could 
then 
insist 
that 
the 
matter 
was 
only 
in 
respect 
of 
three 
applicants. 
The 
Assistant 
Registrar 
in 
this 
matter 
was 
justified 
when 
she 
dismissed 
the 
preliminary 
objection. 


4 



I 
find 
this 
application 
frivolous, 
a 
waste 
of 
court's 
time 
and 
abuse 
of 
court 
process. 


This 
is 
a 
matter 
in 
which 
costs 
should 
have 
been 
awarded 
against 
the 
Advocate 
inperson.Iwillnotdosonow. 


This 
application 
must 
therefore 
be 
dismissed, 
and 
it's 
hereby 
dismissed 
with 
costs. 


HON. 
MR.JUSTICE 
KENNETH 
KAKURU, 
JA 
31sT 
JULY 
2013 


5