Wakilii

Attorney General v Turyamureeba (Civil Suit 436 of 1989)

High Court · [1991] UGHC 35 · 1991 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment delivered in Civil Suit No. 436 of 1989, with preliminary objection raised to the competence of the application
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; review application to proceed to hearing on merits

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 High Court does not become functus officio after delivering judgment in respect of an application for review properly instituted under Order 42 Rules 1 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 8 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such applications. Preliminary objection overruled.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; review application to proceed to hearing on merits

Facts

The Attorney General applied to review a judgment of the High Court delivered on 4 September 1990 in Civil Suit No. 436 of 1989. The application was instituted under Order 42 Rules 1 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 8 of the Civil Procedure Act. When the motion came up for hearing on 27 February 1991, counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the application was not properly before the Court, contending that the Court had become functus officio after delivering judgment. The respondent argued that the application should have been struck out.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court becomes functus officio after delivering judgment such that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application for review under Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Respondent to pay the costs of the preliminary objection.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Functus Officio — Jurisdiction After Judgment Delivered
A court does not become functus officio in respect of an application for review of judgment instituted under Order 42 Rules 1 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 8 of the Civil Procedure Act after judgment has been delivered.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Jurisdiction — Statutory Powers of Court
Order 42 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules expressly enables a court which passed a decree or made an order to entertain an application for review of judgment after judgment has been delivered, where the applicant discovers new and important matter or evidence.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Brooke Bond Liebig (T) Ltd v Mallya (1975) EA 266
  • J. Ndawula v Mubiru and D.A.P. Custodian (1976) HCB 102

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attorney General v Turyamureeba (Civil Suit 436 of 1989) [1991] UGHC 35 (10 April 1991)
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.