Wakilii

Dolamite Engineering Services Limited v Attorney General & Another (Miscellaneous Application 958 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 26 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of a 2018 High Court Commercial Division judgment dismissing a procurement challenge
Decision
Application for review dismissed; the 2018 judgment remains undisturbed

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 an application for review cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. Arguments that the court made wrong findings of fact and applied the law incorrectly do not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record but are grounds for appeal. The applicant's challenge to the trial judge's interpretation of section 4(1) PPDA Act and findings on the applicability of African Development Bank Rules involved appreciation of evidence and law, not self-evident error. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; the 2018 judgment remains undisturbed

Facts

In 2011 the applicant bid for construction of Lira Main Market under a procurement process governed by African Development Bank Rules. The applicant's bid was rejected as non-responsive and it challenged the rejection, alleging irregularities including bribery and substitution of documents. In 2018 the High Court Commercial Division dismissed the underlying suit, holding the procurement was properly conducted under African Development Bank Rules which took precedence over the PPDA Act pursuant to section 4(1), the bid rejection was justified, and there was no evidence of irregularities. Five years later the applicant applied for review, contending the trial judge misconstrued section 4(1) and misapprehended the facts, arguing there was no conflict between the bidding methodologies to trigger suspension of the PPDA Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge committed an error apparent on the face of the record in holding that the PPDA Act 2003 was inapplicable to the procurement process.
  2. Whether the trial judge misconstrued section 4(1) of the PPDA Act 2003 in finding that African Development Bank Rules took precedence.
  3. Whether the application for review was filed with inordinate delay.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Scope and Limits — Review Distinguished from Appeal
An application for review has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. A review may be granted to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the court, but it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits, which is the province of an appellate court.
Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition and Test
An error apparent on the face of the record is one which is self-evident and does not require an elaborate argument to be established. It must be an error which strikes one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Review — Wrong Findings of Fact or Misapplication of Law — Not Error Apparent on Record
Arguments demonstrating that the court made wrong findings of fact based on the evidence before it and applied the law incorrectly, such that a different court would have reached a different conclusion on the same facts and arguments, do not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record but are grounds for appeal. To permit an applicant to argue on questions of appreciation of evidence and law would amount to converting an application for review into an appeal in disguise.
Civil Procedure — Review — Misconstruction of Statute — Ground for Appeal, Not Review
That the court proceeded on an incorrect exposition of the law and reached an erroneous conclusion of law is not a proper ground for review. Misconstruing a statute or other provision of law cannot be ground for review but could be a proper ground for appeal, since in that case the court will have made a conscious decision on the matters in controversy and exercised its discretion in favour of the successful party in respect of a contested issue.
Civil Procedure — Review — Court Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Its Own Decision
A court exercising the power of review cannot sit in appeal over its own decision. An order cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court. It is not sufficient ground for review that another judge could have taken a different view of the matter.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Attorney General v James Kamoga [2008] KALR 249
  • Kinyara Sugar Ltd v Hajji Kazimbiraine Mahmood and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2020)
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2001] 2 EA 173

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dolamite Engineering Services Limited v Attorney General & Another (Miscellaneous Application 958 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 26 (5 January 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.