Wakilii

Amudo v Secretary General of the East African Community

East African Court of Justice · [2015] EACJ 112 · 2015 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 dated 30 July 2015 in Appeal No. 4 of 2014
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 a judgment that had dismissed her appeal on the ground that her claim was time-barred 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 misconceived as they challenged obiter dicta rather than the ratio decidendi. The remaining 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.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant, Angella Amudo, was appointed as Project Accountant by the East African Community Council of Ministers in September 2008 for a 21-month contract under the RISP Project. She assumed duty on 1 November 2008 and served until 30 June 2010. She was subsequently given periodic short-term contracts until 30 April 2012, when the Respondent informed her that her contract would not be renewed. On 27 September 2012, she filed a claim in the First Instance Division challenging the legality of her appointment terms. The Trial Court partly found in her favour. She appealed, but the Appellate Division dismissed her appeal on 30 July 2015, holding that the claim was time-barred under Article 30(2) of the Treaty and that the Trial Court lacked jurisdiction. She then filed this application for review on 4 December 2015, seeking to challenge the Appellate Division's judgment on eight grounds.

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
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require detailed examination, scrutiny, or elaboration of facts or law. It must be such as can be seen by one who runs and reads. If an error requires a long debate and process of reasoning to detect, it cannot be treated as an error on the face of the record.
Review Jurisdiction — Distinction Between Review and Appeal
Review jurisdiction is not by way of appeal and does not provide a back door method for unsuccessful litigants to re-argue their case. The purpose of review is not to seek re-appraisal of the entire evidence on record, as that would amount to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is not permissible in review proceedings.
Review Jurisdiction — Finality of Judgments — Public Policy
Public policy demands finality of litigation and certainty of the law as declared by the highest court. A court will not sit as a court of appeal from its own decisions, nor will it entertain applications for review merely on the ground that one of the parties conceives himself aggrieved by the decision. If cases once decided could be re-opened and re-heard, litigation would have no end except when legal ingenuity is exhausted.
Review Jurisdiction — Challenges to Obiter Dicta
Grounds of review that challenge obiter dicta rather than the ratio decidendi of a judgment are legally unmaintainable. Where a court's decision is premised solely on a legal issue such as limitation, observations on the merits of the claim are obiter dicta and cannot form the basis for a review application.
Review Jurisdiction — Scope and Limits
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 a point is already dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 9(4)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • East African Community Staff Rules and Regulations Regulation 22(1)(c)

Cases cited (19)

  • Haystead v Commissioner for Taxation [1920] AC 155
  • Raja Prithwi Chand Lail Chaudhary v Sukhraj Rai (AIR 1941 SC 1)
  • Tanzania Transcontinental Co. Ltd v Design Partnership Ltd, [CAT], Civil Application No. 62 of 1996 (unreported)
  • Attilio v Mbowe (1970) HCD.n.3 (TzHC)
  • Meera Bhanja v Nirmala Kumari Choudury (1955) ISCC (India)
  • Independent Medical Unit v Attorney General of Kenya (Application No. 2 of 2012)
  • Peter Ng'homango v.Gerson A. K. Mwanga & Another, [CAT] Civil Application No. 33 of 2002 (unreported)
  • Devender Pal Singh v. State, N.C.T. of New Delhi and Another, Review Petitions No. 497, 620 and 627 of 2002 (India Supreme Court)
  • Blueline Enterprises Ltd. v. The East African Development Bank (EADB) [CAT] Civil Application No. 21 of 2012 (unreported)
  • 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 Andra Pradesh [1964] SC 1372
  • S. Baghirathi Ammal vs. Palani Roman Catholic Church (2009) 10 SCC 464
  • East African Law Society and Four Others v 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 [2015] EACJ 112 (25 May 2015)
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.