Wakilii

Dawa v Kaliisa (Miscellaneous Application 43 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 470 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment arising from Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2022
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

Held that the alleged error in adjudicating upon an appeal filed out of time does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record because it requires elaborate argument, computation of days, and examination of pleadings to establish. The applicant failed to show discovery of new evidence or raise the competence objection during the appeal hearing despite having the opportunity to do so with due diligence. Review is not available as an afterthought to cure procedural objections that should have been raised at the appropriate time.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant, Dawa Stephen, administrator of an estate, sought review of a High Court judgment dated 1 February 2024 in Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2022. The underlying trial court judgment was delivered on 29 November 2017. The respondent filed a notice of appeal on 4 January 2018 and a memorandum of appeal on 6 August 2018. The applicant alleged that the appeal was incompetently filed out of time, as it was filed more than nine months after the trial judgment, and that the court erred in adjudicating the appeal on merits without the respondent first obtaining an extension of time. The respondent stated he filed the appeal within 30 days and the memorandum late due to delay in the record of proceedings, but provided no evidence to support this assertion. The applicant did not raise the competence objection during the appeal hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the judgment allowing Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2022 should be reviewed on grounds that the appeal was incompetently filed out of time.
  2. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Review — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record — Definition and Scope
An error apparent on the face of the record must be an evident error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness, must be so manifestly clear that no court would permit it to remain on record, and should not require a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may be two opinions.
Review — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record — Procedural Defects Requiring Argument
A court adjudicating upon an appeal allegedly filed out of time does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record because establishing such an error requires elaborate argument, computation of days, and examination of pleadings and other documents, and is not self-evident from the record itself.
Review — Discovery of New Evidence — Requirements
For review based on discovery of new and important evidence, the applicant must show that after exercise of due diligence, the evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time the decree was passed or order made. An objection to the competence of an appeal that could have been raised during the appeal hearing does not qualify as new evidence justifying review.
Review — Use as an Afterthought — Improper Purpose
Review proceedings cannot be used as an afterthought to raise procedural objections that ought to have been raised during the hearing of the substantive matter. The competence of an appeal should be challenged at the appeal hearing, not through a subsequent review application, as litigation must come to an end.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (2)

  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaza (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • F.X Mubuuke v Uganda Electricity Board (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dawa v Kaliisa (Miscellaneous Application 43 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 470 (21 June 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.