Wakilii

China Road and Bridge Corporation v Welt Machinen Engineering Limited and Others (Civil Application 14 of 2022)

Supreme Court · [2023] UGSC 43 · 2023 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to recall and review the Supreme Court's own judgment in consolidated Civil Appeals No. 13 and 14 of 2019, on grounds of error on the face of the record and accidental slip
Decision
Application to recall and review the Supreme Court's judgment dismissed with costs (majority); two Justices dissenting

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 majority dismissed the application to recall and review the Court's judgment in consolidated Civil Appeals No. 13 and 14 of 2019. It held that the inherent powers preserved by Rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules are limited and cannot be used to circumvent the finality of the Court's decisions; setting aside a judgment is confined to judgments proved null and void or to preventing abuse of process. No error apparent on the face of the record was shown, and the application was a disguised appeal inviting the Court to sit in judgment on its own decision. Newly discovered evidence could not justify reopening a concluded appeal; remedies lay in the High Court. Dismissed with costs.

Facts

The applicant, China Road & Bridge Corporation, sought to recall and review the Supreme Court's judgment in consolidated Civil Appeals No. 13 and 14 of 2019. In that judgment the Court held that granite quarried from Kamusalaba Rock was not a mineral, that the location licences held by the 1st respondent were void, and that Nakapiripirit District Land Board was entitled to UGX 23,995,130,000 as the value of the granite wrongly exploited by the applicant. The applicant contended that this figure reflected the value of processed crushed aggregate, including its own labour and processing costs, whereas the Land Board was entitled only to the value of the raw rock in situ, about UGX 287,694,151. It alleged a slip or error on the face of the record and relied on evidence about sums sequestrated from its UNRA funds and paid to the 1st respondent and a law firm. Both respondents opposed the application, contending it was a disguised appeal seeking to circumvent the finality of the Court's decision.

Issues

  1. Whether there were sufficient grounds for the Supreme Court to exercise its inherent powers to recall and review its judgment in consolidated Civil Appeals No. 13 and 14 of 2019.
  2. Whether there were errors on the face of the record arising from an accidental slip and/or mistake in the judgment in consolidated Civil Appeals No. 13 and 14 of 2019.
  3. Whether newly discovered evidence could form a basis for recalling and reviewing a concluded appeal of the Supreme Court.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The application is dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review and Recall of Judgment — Finality of Decisions of the Final Appellate Court
A decision of the Supreme Court as the final court of appeal is final, and an unsuccessful party cannot apply for its reversal; the Court may revisit its decision only within the limited circumstances preserved by Rule 2(2) and Rule 35(1) of the Supreme Court Rules.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Scope of Rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules
The inherent powers preserved by Rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules are limited and procedural; they extend only to making orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process, and to setting aside judgments proved null and void, and may not be invoked to circumvent the principle of finality of the Court's decisions.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
Under Rule 35(1), correction is confined to a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, so as to give effect to the Court's intention at the time of judgment; the error must be apparent on the face of the record and require no extraneous matter to demonstrate its incorrectness.
Civil Procedure — Review — Newly Discovered Evidence
Newly discovered evidence cannot form a basis for recalling and reviewing a concluded appeal of the Supreme Court; the Court's intention can be discerned only from the material presented at the hearing, and remedies based on fresh facts lie in the High Court.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Disguised Appeal
An application that invites the final appellate court to re-evaluate the evidence and reach a different decision is in substance a disguised appeal and an abuse of process which the Court will reject.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.82(b)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.27(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.35(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.30(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.132(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.132(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.244(6)
  • Land Act s.59
  • Land Act s.60
  • Mining Act 2003 s.60(1)

Cases cited (12)

  • Orient Bank Ltd v Fredrick Zzabwe and Mars Trading Ltd (Civil Application No. 1 of 2007)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • Lakhamshi Brothers Ltd v R. Raja and Sons [1965] 1 EA 313
  • Mukwano Enterprises Ltd v Rachobhai Shivabhai Patel & Henry Wambuga (Civil Application No. 16 of 2019)
  • Fang Ming v Dr. Emmanuel Kaijuka (Civil Application No. 6 of 2009)
  • Michael Mabikke v Law Development Centre (Civil Application No. 16 of 2015)
  • Somani v Shirinkhanu (No 2) [1971] 1 EA 79
  • Musiara Ltd v Ntimama [2005] 1 EA 317
  • R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) [1999] 1 All ER 577
  • Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome (No 2) [1972] 2 All ER 849
  • Taylor v Lawrence [2002] 2 All ER 353
  • Connelly v DPP [1964] 2 All ER 401
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.