Wakilii

Amudo v Secretary General of The East African Community (Application 4 of 2015)

East African Court of Justice · [2016] EACJ 130 · 2016 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of the Appellate Division's judgment in Appeal No. 4 of 2014 dated 30 July 2015
Decision
Application for review dismissed with costs

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 dismissed the application for review. The Applicant sought review of the Appellate Division's judgment which had dismissed her appeal on grounds of time bar under Article 30(2) of the Treaty. The Court held that the Applicant failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record. Six of the eight grounds relied upon were based on obiter dicta rather than the ratio decidendi of the impugned judgment. The remaining two grounds did not demonstrate patent errors justifying review. The Court emphasised that review jurisdiction is not a back door method for unsuccessful litigants to re-argue their case and that public policy demands finality of litigation.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs

Facts

The Applicant, an accountant, was appointed by the East African Community Council of Ministers as Project Accountant under the RISP Project to replace Mr. Ponziano Nyeko who had resigned. Her letter of appointment dated 29 September 2008 specified a contract running from assumption of duty to June 2010. She assumed duty on 1 November 2008 and served the full term. Upon expiry, she was given periodic short-term employment contracts in the same position. On 27 April 2012, the Respondent informed her that her short-term contract expiring on 30 April 2012 would not be renewed. She challenged this decision, claiming she was entitled to a five-year renewable contract under the Staff Rules and Regulations. The Trial Court partly found in her favour. On appeal, the Appellate Division dismissed her appeal, holding that the claim was time-barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty and that the Trial Court lacked jurisdiction. The Applicant then sought review of the Appellate Division's judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction to review its Judgment dated 30 July 2015 on the grounds stated in the Notice of Motion.
  2. Whether on account of fraud practised upon it by the Respondent, the Court erroneously found that the Learned Justices of the First Instance Division had misapprehended the nature, substance and quality of the Respondent's evidence.

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Review Jurisdiction — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
A review of judgment is not granted as a matter of absolute right upon mere assertions of mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. An error which has to be fished out and searched will not suffice. It must be an error which is so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the applicant. Not every error or mistake in a judgment will justify a review.
Review Jurisdiction — Distinction Between Review and Appeal — Finality of Litigation
Review jurisdiction is not by way of an appeal. The purpose of review is not to provide a back door method to unsuccessful litigants to re-argue their case. A court will not sit as a court of appeal from its own decisions, nor will it entertain applications for review on the ground that one of the parties conceives himself aggrieved by the decision. Public policy demands finality of litigation and certainty of the law as declared by the highest court.
Review Jurisdiction — Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dicta — Grounds Based on Obiter Dicta
Grounds for review based on obiter dicta rather than the ratio decidendi of the impugned judgment are legally unmaintainable in a review application. Where a court's decision is premised solely on a legal issue such as limitation which renders a claim incompetent, and not on the merits of the claim, grounds challenging observations made on the merits are frivolous and misconceived as they are based on obiter dicta and not the ratio decidendi.
Review Jurisdiction — Scope and Limits — Correction of Mistakes Not Substitution of Views
The power of review is limited in scope and is normally used for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view in law. Mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking review jurisdiction. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction — Determination of Jurisdiction — Pleadings Not Bar Assertions
In determining its jurisdiction at the threshold, a court must be guided by the relevant laws, treaties inclusive, and the parties' pleadings and not by the parties' allegations or assertions of facts from the bar. A cause of action should always be gleaned from the plaint or statement of claim and not from the claimant's assertions from the bar or submissions.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 31
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 35(3)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 70(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 9(4)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 72
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 72(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 72(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 72(3)

Cases cited (19)

  • Haystead v Commissioner for Taxation [1920] AC 155
  • Raja Prithwi Chand Lall Chaudhary v Sukhraj Rai (AIR 1941 SC 1)
  • Tanzania Transcontinental Co Ltd v Design Partnership Ltd (Civil Application No. 62 of 1996)
  • Attilio v Mbowe (1970) HCD n.3
  • Meera Bhanja v Nirmala Kumari Choudury (1955) ISCC
  • Independent Medical Unit v Attorney General of Kenya (Application No. 2 of 2012)
  • Peter Ng'homango v Gerson AK Mwanga & Another (Civil Application No. 33 of 2002)
  • Devender Pal Singh v State NCT of New Delhi and Another (Review Petitions No. 497, 620 and 627 of 2002)
  • Blueline Enterprises Ltd v The East African Development Bank (Civil Application No. 21 of 2012)
  • Kamlesh Varma v Mayawati & Others (Review Application No. 453 of 2012)
  • Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Ariban Pishak Sharma (1979) 11 UJ 300 SC
  • National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Njau [1995-98] 2 EA 231
  • Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) [1993] HCA 6
  • State of Gujarat v Consumer Education and Research Centre (1981) A Guj 233
  • State of West Bengal and Others v Kamal Sengupta and Another (2008) 8 SCC 612
  • Chandrakant Joshubhai Patel v R [2004] TLR 218
  • Thungabhadra Industries Ltd v State of Andhra Pradesh [1964] SC 1372
  • S Baghirathi Ammal v Palani Roman Catholic Church (2009) 10 SCC 464
  • The East African Law Society and Four Others v The Attorney General of Kenya and Three Others (Appeal No. 3 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Amudo v Secretary General of The East African Community (Application 4 of 2015) [2016] EACJ 130 (25 May 2016)
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.