Wakilii

Lubega v Kalemba and Another [2019] UGCA 2091

Court of Appeal · 2019 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Court of Appeal to review and set aside its own judgment in an election petition appeal
Decision
Application to review the Court's own judgment dismissed with costs

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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 Court of Appeal dismissed an application to review and set aside its own judgment in an election petition appeal. The Court held that section 33 of the Judicature Act and sections 82 and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act do not apply to the Court of Appeal, being confined to the High Court and Magistrates Courts. The slip rule under Rule 36(1) only corrects clerical, arithmetical or accidental errors that fail to express the Court's manifest intention, not errors of law or fact. The judgment was not a nullity, so Rule 2(2) could not be invoked. As the final appellate court in election matters, the Court could not entertain a disguised appeal against its own decision.

Facts

The applicant had unsuccessfully challenged the election of the first respondent as Member of Parliament in Election Petition Appeal No. 32 of 2016, which the Court of Appeal decided on 19 January 2018. The applicant contended that the first respondent's academic qualifications were invalid, asserting he obtained only one credit at O-Level yet the minimum requirement for certificate admission to university was three credits under SI 63 of 2007. The applicant also alleged bribery of voters and that the first respondent had not validly resigned as RDC Lwengo. Dissatisfied with the Court's earlier judgment upholding the respondent's qualifications and election, the applicant brought this application seeking to have that judgment reviewed and set aside, relying on the slip rule and the inherent powers of the Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction under section 33 of the Judicature Act and sections 82 and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to review its own judgment.
  2. Whether the slip rule under Rule 36(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules can be invoked to correct alleged errors of law and fact in the Court's judgment.
  3. Whether the application amounted to a disguised appeal against the Court's own decision in an election petition appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Application of Section 33 Judicature Act and Sections 82 and 98 Civil Procedure Act
Section 33 of the Judicature Act and sections 82 and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act apply only to the High Court and Magistrates Courts and cannot be invoked to review a judgment of the Court of Appeal.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Scope of Rule 36(1) Court of Appeal Rules
The slip rule permits correction only of clerical, arithmetical or accidental errors that fail to express the Court's manifest intention; it cannot be used to correct errors of law or fact, even where apparent on the record.
Civil Procedure — Finality of Judgments — Functus Officio
A court becomes functus officio once it has made a final decision disposing of a case, and Rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules may only be invoked to set aside a judgment proved to be null and void.
Electoral Law — Appellate Finality — Court of Appeal as Final Appellate Court in Election Matters
The Court of Appeal is the final appellate court in election matters and cannot sit in appeal of its own judgment; an application seeking to re-adjudicate matters already decided is a disguised appeal and an abuse of court process.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Civil Procedure Act s.82
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Civil Procedure Act s.1
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 36(1)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 80
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 86
  • University and Other Tertiary Institutions (Minimum Entry Requirements for Admission to Universities or Other Tertiary Institutions) Regulations SI 63 of 2007

Cases cited (12)

  • M/s Northern Indian Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs Lt. Governor of Delhi AIR 674 1980
  • Waimiha Saw Milling Co. vs Wione Timber Co. Ltd (1962) AC 101
  • Gore Nicholas Davis v Loi Kageni Kiryapawo (Election Appeal No. 19 of 2007)
  • Abdu Bangirana Nakendo v Patrick Mwondha (Election Petition Appeal No. 9 of 2007)
  • Baku Raphael Obudra and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2003)
  • Livingstone M. Sewanyana v Martin Aliker (Miscellaneous Application No. 40 of 1991)
  • Orient Bank v Fredrick Zaabwe and Another (Civil Application No. 17 of 2007)
  • Kakhamishi Brothers Ltd vs R. Raja & Sons (1960) EA 313
  • Joy Kabatsi Kafura v Anifa Kawooya (Election Petition No. 025 of 2005)
  • Shah Vs Dhavanchi [1951] KLR 561
  • Ahmed Kawooya Kaigu v Bangu Aggrey Fred (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2007)
  • NPART v General Parts (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2000)
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.