Wakilii

Birungi v Kakyo (Miscellaneous Application 26 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 98 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of ruling awarding school fees and maintenance arrears in underlying family court proceedings
Decision
Application for review dismissed; underlying orders in Misc. Application No. 018 of 2023 remain binding

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

An application for review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules must demonstrate mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or other sufficient cause. The applicant's claim that the court failed to consider his inability to pay the decreed amounts due to loss of employment and financial constraints does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. Such an error must be self-evident and glaring without requiring examination of evidence or pleadings. The application was dismissed for lack of merit.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; underlying orders in Misc. Application No. 018 of 2023 remain binding

Facts

The applicant brought a motion seeking to vary and stay execution of a ruling dated 30 November 2023 which ordered him to pay UGX 9,515,450 as school fees arrears and UGX 1,500,000 as school requirements within 30 days. The applicant averred that he had resigned from his position as Acting Town Clerk due to harassment by the respondent, had no alternative source of income, was servicing a UGX 14,000,000 bank loan, was caring for his terminally ill mother, and was paying school fees for other dependants. The applicant argued the court made a mistake by not considering these circumstances. The respondent was served but did not respond. The matter was heard exparte.

Issues

  1. Whether this is a proper application for review.
  2. Whether the applicant has presented sufficient cause warranting a review of the orders in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 0018 of 2023.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed for lack of merit.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Locus Standi — Aggrieved Person
Under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, locus standi for purposes of review is limited to a person aggrieved by a decision of court, meaning one who has suffered a legal grievance, been deprived of property, or whose rights have been affected by the impugned judgment.
Civil Procedure — Review — Mistake or Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition and Scope
A mistake or error apparent on the face of the record refers to an evident error which does not require extraneous matter to show its incorrectness and must be so manifest and clear that no court would permit it to remain on the record. The error must be self-evident and not require detailed examination, scrutiny, or elucidation of facts or law. If detection of the error requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be an error apparent on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Review — Review Not a Disguised Appeal — Capacity to Pay Not Reviewable Error
A party cannot use review proceedings to challenge the court's failure to consider matters that were not triable issues in the original application. Where the original motion concerned consequential orders flowing from a judgment and not the applicant's capacity to pay, the applicant's subsequent inability to pay does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (5)

  • Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd [1979] HCB 12
  • Muhammed Bukenya Allibai v W.E Bukenya and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Levi Outa v Uganda Transport Company [1995] HCB 340
  • Satis Kumar v Chief Secretary (Revision Application No. 51 of 2013)
  • Bamugaya Deo v Peter Tinkasimire and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 90 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Birungi v Kakyo (Miscellaneous Application 26 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 98 (22 March 2024)
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.