Wakilii

Obote v Uganda (Criminal Application 1 of 2017)

Supreme Court · [2018] UGSC 84 · 2018 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for review of its own final decision dismissing a criminal appeal, brought by notice of motion under Article 132(4) of the Constitution and Rules 2(2) and 35 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Decision
Application for review dismissed for want of jurisdiction; the Supreme Court's earlier decision confirming conviction and sentence stands.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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 applicant, convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, sought review of the Supreme Court's earlier decision dismissing his appeal, invoking Article 132(4) of the Constitution and Rules 2(2) and 35 of the Rules of the Court. The Court held that its decision on any issue of fact or law is final, and that the slip rule (Rule 35) and its inherent power (Rule 2(2)) permit correction only where a judgment is null and void or where an accidental slip or omission must be corrected to give effect to the court's intention. None of these circumstances existed. The Court found the application to be a stratagem to reopen a settled verdict and held it had no jurisdiction to entertain it. Application dismissed.

Facts

The applicant was convicted by the High Court at Lira on 15 April 2009 of the murder of his wife and sentenced on 21 April 2009 to life imprisonment. His appeal to the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed on 22 May 2014. His further appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed on 1 February 2017. Following that final appeal, the applicant brought this application, representing himself, seeking review of the Supreme Court's decision. He contended, among other grounds, that the Court should depart from its previous decision and correct the judgment to clarify the intention behind his sentence, and complained about the period spent on remand and the indefinite rescission of his release date by prison authorities. The respondent submitted that the application raised no triable issues and was defective.

Issues

  1. Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review and reopen its own final decision dismissing an appeal.
  2. Whether the conditions for correcting a judgment under the slip rule or the court's inherent power were satisfied.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Finality of Judgments — Review of the Supreme Court's Own Decisions
A decision of the Supreme Court on any issue of fact or law is final, and an unsuccessful party cannot apply to have it reviewed or reopened; the Court has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment of its own settled verdict.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Correction of Accidental Slip or Omission
Under the slip rule, the court may correct a judgment only where it is satisfied that it is giving effect to the court's intention at the time judgment was given, or where, in the case of a matter overlooked, it is satisfied beyond doubt as to the order it would have made had the matter been brought to its attention.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Power — Setting Aside Judgments Proved Null and Void
The court's jurisdiction to recall and alter its judgment is not confined to the slip rule but may also be exercised under its inherent power, which extends to setting aside judgments proved null and void and to preventing abuse of process; absent such circumstances the power does not arise.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Interest in Finality of Litigation
It is in the interest of all persons that there should be an end to litigation, and the court will discourage applications that are a mere stratagem to have a settled verdict reopened.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Constitution of Uganda art.132(4)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.2(2)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.35(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.35(2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Orient Bank v Fredrick Zaabwe (Civil Application No. 17 of 2017)
  • Fang Min v Dr. Kaijuka Mutabaazi Emmanuel (Civil Application No. 6 of 2009)
  • NPART v General Parts (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2000)
  • Lakhamshi Brothers Ltd v R. Raja & Sons [1966] EA 313
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.