Lubyayi Iddi Kisiki v Kagimu (Election Application 1 of 2003)

Court of Appeal · [2003] UGCA 53 · 2003 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application by notice of motion to set aside a costs order and to have the Court of Appeal revisit its earlier judgment

Decision

Application dismissed with costs; earlier judgment and costs order left undisturbed

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The applicant sought to have the Court of Appeal revisit its earlier final judgment that upheld the nullification of his election, and to set aside the costs awarded against him. The Court held that an application under rules 1(3), 35 and 42 permits correction only of clerical or accidental slips or omissions giving effect to the court's intention; it does not allow the court to sit on appeal against its own judgment. As the applicant in effect asked the court to reverse itself and failed to identify any inadvertent omission, the application was misconceived and was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The applicant and the respondent contested Parliamentary Elections for Bukomansombi Constituency in Masaka District, held on 26 June 2001, which the applicant won. The respondent petitioned the High Court to nullify the result on the ground that the applicant was not qualified to be a Member of Parliament, having been nominated on the basis of invalid papers presented to UNEB and the Electoral Commission claiming an academic qualification equivalent to an 'A' Level Certificate. The High Court nullified the election and the Court of Appeal upheld the nullification on appeal, awarding costs to the respondent in both courts. The applicant then filed a notice of motion asking the Court of Appeal to revisit its judgment dated 25 October 2002, contending that the courts had been misled into relying on an uncertified document obtained from the Electoral Commission rather than certified documents he had presented to UNEB, and that the costs order against him should be set aside.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction under rules 1(3), 35 and 42 of its rules to revisit and reverse its own final judgment.
Whether the costs order made against the applicant in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal should be set aside.

Orders

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Recalling and Correcting Judgments — Scope of the Slip Rule

A court has inherent jurisdiction to recall its judgments only to give effect to its manifest intention or to correct clerical, arithmetic or accidental slips and omissions; it will not sit on appeal against its own judgment in the same proceedings.

Civil Procedure — Finality of Judgments — No Jurisdiction to Reverse Own Final Decision

An application whose effect is to request the Court of Appeal to reverse its own final judgment is misconceived, as the court has no jurisdiction to reverse itself under rules governing the correction of slips and omissions.

Legislation cited (1)

Judicature Act s.12

Cases cited (4)

Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust v General Parts (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 8 of 2001)
Uganda Development Bank v Oil Seed (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 15 of 1997)
Roko Construction Company v Uganda Cooperative Transport Union (Civil Application No. 32 of 1972)
Amama Mbabazi v Musinguzi Garuga James (Civil Application No. 19 of 2002)

Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.