Dott Services Ltd v Tezikuba James (Miscellaneous Application 308 of 2024)

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.

Holding

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to review its own appellate judgment and substitute an opposite decision. Review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act is limited to discovery of new evidence or errors apparent on the record, not reconsideration of substantive judicial decisions. Where a party challenges the correctness of a High Court appellate judgment, including orders for retrial, the proper remedy is appeal to the Court of Appeal, not review. A considered decision of a judge, even if arguably erroneous, cannot be reviewed by the same court but must be challenged on appeal.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; applicant must pursue remedy by way of appeal to Court of Appeal if aggrieved

Facts

The respondent obtained judgment against the applicant company in Magistrate Grade One Court for UGX 29,189,000 comprising special damages, rent arrears, and general damages arising from demolition of his house. The applicant appealed to the High Court on grounds that the trial magistrate exceeded her pecuniary jurisdiction of UGX 20,000,000. On 11 July 2024, Lady Justice Dr. Nabisinde allowed the appeal in part, set aside the judgment, and ordered a retrial before a Chief Magistrate with directions to retain the evidence already on record and conduct a fresh visit to the locus in quo before writing a fresh judgment. The applicant did not appeal this decision. Five months later, in December 2024, the applicant filed this application seeking to review the judgment and set aside the retrial order, arguing that the judge should have simply allowed the appeal and declared the trial magistrate lacked jurisdiction.

Issues

1. Whether the High Court has power under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act to review its own judgment on appeal and arrive at an opposite decision.
2. Whether the decision to order a retrial before a Chief Magistrate while retaining evidence from a Magistrate Grade One constitutes an error apparent on the record justifying review.
3. Whether matters challenging the substantive correctness of an appellate decision should be pursued by way of review or appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.82
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.66
• Judicature Act Cap 16 s.37
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 46
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 46 Rule 1(b)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 132(4)

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