Nsereko & Ors v Bank of Uganda [2011] UGSC 17
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 Court held that rule 30(1) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules prohibits it from taking additional evidence on appeals from the Court of Appeal and admits no exception; and that, the substantive appeal having been finally disposed of in 2003, there was no pending appeal to which the rule could apply. The inherent jurisdiction preserved by rule 2(2) could not be invoked because the applicants failed to demonstrate that their case fell within the rule, and the ends of justice required an end to litigation and adherence to the decision of the final appellate court. The application was accordingly struck out as incompetent.
Facts
Former employees of the Bank of Uganda brought a representative suit (H.C.C.S No. 961 of 1998) to determine their pension benefits, which the High Court decided in their favour. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision in favour of the Bank, and the employees' further appeal to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2002) was dismissed on 21 March 2003, with the Court clarifying the pension entitlements in a ruling delivered on 16 January 2004. Six years later, the applicants filed Civil Application No. 13 of 2009 seeking leave to adduce newly discovered evidence and to have the Court recall, vary or review its 2003 judgment, relying on rules 2(2) and 42 of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules. At the hearing, counsel for the Bank raised a preliminary objection that the Court had no power to take additional evidence after final disposal of the appeal.
Issues
- Whether the Supreme Court has power under rule 30(1) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules to take additional evidence after an appeal has been finally disposed of.
- Whether the Court's inherent jurisdiction under rule 2(2) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules can be invoked to recall, vary or review a concluded judgment so as to admit newly discovered evidence.
- Whether the application was competent.
Orders
- Application struck out for being incompetent.
- Each party to meet its own costs.
Key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.2(2)
- Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.30(1)
- Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.42(1)
- Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.42(2)