Wakilii

Sewanyanya v Aliker (Civil Application 4 of 1991)

Supreme Court · [1992] UGSC 25 · 1992 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for review of its own judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1990 and for admission of newly discovered evidence, on the ground of fraud
Decision
Application for review dismissed; applicant left to bring a fresh suit to impeach the judgment on the ground of fraud if so advised

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 8 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 held that a judgment tainted by fraud is tainted throughout and must fail, following the Privy Council in Hip Foong Hong. Rule 1(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules preserves the Court's inherent power, even after a judgment has been perfected, to set it aside to prevent abuse of process and for the ends of justice; the statutory review power of the High Court under the Civil Procedure Act does not extend to this Court. The Court could therefore entertain the application by motion. However, the applicant adduced no new evidence of fraud — having not searched the relevant 1982 minutes — so no fraud was established. The application was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The dispute concerned competing applications for a lease of suit premises at Nansana. The applicant contended he had not been notified of any approval of a lease in his favour in August 1982 and had applied afresh in 1986, which he treated as the operative application. The trial court, affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1990, found that the proper allocation occurred in 1986, when the applicant lost to the respondent, who held an existing lease as trustee for certain beneficiaries. The applicant later moved to review that judgment, alleging that a witness, Ms. Mayiga (a former Senior Registrar of Titles), had given false evidence and concealed documents while in office, which only became available after she left. He sought admission of this allegedly fresh evidence and a re-opening of the decision on the ground of fraud.

Issues

  1. Whether fraud, if established, would vitiate a judgment of the Court.
  2. Whether the Supreme Court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own perfected judgment on the ground of fraud by way of motion, or whether the applicant must bring a fresh suit.
  3. Whether the applicant established new evidence sufficient to ground an allegation of fraud.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Inherent Jurisdiction — Power to Set Aside a Perfected Judgment
Rule 1(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules preserves the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as are necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process, including, in a proper case, the power to recall and set aside its own judgment even after that judgment has been perfected.
Civil Procedure — Fraud — Effect on Judgments
A judgment that is tainted and affected by fraudulent conduct is tainted throughout and the whole must fail.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud — Procedure
Fraud must be both alleged and proved; while a judgment obtained by fraud may be impeached by motion, the better course is ordinarily to take independent proceedings in which the issue of fraud can be fully defined, fought out and determined.
Civil Procedure — Statutory Power of Review — Not Available to the Supreme Court
The statutory power of review conferred on the High Court by the Civil Procedure Act is conferred on that court alone and does not extend to the Supreme Court, which must rely instead on its inherent jurisdiction.
Evidence — Fresh Evidence — Proof of Fraud
An applicant alleging fraud as a basis for re-opening a judgment must establish new evidence of that fraud; a mere allegation, unsupported by inquiry into the relevant records, is insufficient to discharge the burden.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Court of Appeal Rules Rule 1(3)
  • Court of Appeal Rules Rule 35
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Act (Kenya) s.3(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act

Cases cited (4)

  • Hip Foong Hong v H. Neotia & Co [1918] AC 888
  • Somani v Shirinkhanjo (No.2) [1971] EA 79
  • Lnkamanshi Brothers Ltd v . R. Raja and Sons Ltd (1966) E.A.
  • AVIAGENTS, LTD vs BALSTRAVEST niVF^TiCiriTS , LTD (19'56)1 All E.R.
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.