Wakilii

Combined Services Ltd v Attorney General (HCT-00-CC-MA 200 of 2009)

High Court · [2009] UGCOMMC 26 · 2009 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of decree in Civil Suit No. 939 of 2002
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

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

Application for review dismissed. The court held that the alleged errors were not apparent on the face of the record but required extraneous reasoning to establish. The interest rate dispute did not constitute an error staring one in the face. The information claimed as newly discovered evidence was available through due diligence at trial. The application was filed after unreasonable delay of one year and two months.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

Combined Services Ltd applied to review the decree in Civil Suit No. 939 of 2002 delivered on 14 February 2009. The applicant claimed the court made errors including: awarding interest at 4% per annum instead of 7.5% on dollar awards; awarding the respondent 24% interest on an unpaid advance payment guarantee bond when the contract allegedly prohibited interest; failing to apportion a sum of UGX 41,306,428 into the contractual proportions of 30% Uganda shillings and 70% US dollars; and awarding the respondent half the costs of the counterclaim. The respondent opposed the application, arguing no reviewable errors existed and that a pending appeal in the Court of Appeal should adjudicate the issues. The application was filed one year and two months after the original judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether there were mistakes or errors on the face of the record warranting review of the decree.
  2. Whether the applicant had discovered new and important evidence not within its knowledge when the decree was passed.
  3. Whether the interest rate awarded on the dollar awards constituted an error apparent on the face of the record.
  4. Whether the application was filed within a reasonable time.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Decree — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error on the face of the record must be one that stares one in the face and is so manifest and clear that no court would permit it to remain, requiring no extraneous matter or long drawn out process of reasoning to show its incorrectness.
Civil Procedure — Review of Decree — Newly Discovered Evidence
Discovery of new and important matter or evidence justifying review must be of such nature that after exercise of due diligence it was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced at the time the decree was passed.
Civil Procedure — Review of Decree — Time Limits and Laches
An application for review must be made without unreasonable delay, and an application filed one year and two months after judgment may be dismissed for laches.
Civil Procedure — Review of Decree — Distinction from Appeal
A mere error or wrong view is no ground for review although it may be a ground for appeal; review is not available to advance alternative arguments that could have been raised at trial.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (2)

  • Muyode v Industrial and Commercial Development and Another [2006] 1 EA 243
  • Kanyebwera v Tumwebaze [2005] 2 EA 86

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Combined Services Ltd v Attorney General (HCT-00-CC-MA 200 of 2009) [2009] UGCommC 26 (1 September 2009)
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.