Wakilii

Farm Input Care Centre Ltd v Klein Karoo Seed Marketing (PTY) Ltd (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 902 of 2018)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 112 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of ruling dismissing application to set aside default judgment
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

An application for review premised on error apparent on the face of the record may be heard by a judge other than the one who made the original order. An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require elaborate reasoning to establish. A court's consideration of whether an applicant instructed counsel timeously does not constitute raising its own question where the issue was implicit in the pleadings and submissions. The application for review was dismissed.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs

Facts

The respondent obtained default judgment against the applicant for US $70,797.19 for seeds supplied on credit. The applicant, seven months after service of the summons, applied to set aside the default judgment, attributing the delay to counsel's mistake. The applicant claimed it had instructed counsel upon receipt of summons but only discovered counsel's inaction when served with a taxation notice. The court dismissed the application on 25 March 2021, finding no evidence the applicant had timeously instructed counsel, especially given the seven-month delay before follow-up. The applicant then applied for review, contending the court raised and decided a question not pleaded or argued by the parties.

Issues

  1. Whether there exists an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review of the court's decision dismissing the application to set aside default judgment.
  2. Whether the court can review its own decision where the original judge has been transferred.
  3. Whether the court improperly raised and adjudicated upon a question not pleaded or argued by the parties.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Jurisdiction — Transfer of Judge
An application for review premised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, or on the existence of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or error apparent on the face of the decree or order, may be considered by any judge other than the one who passed the decree or order sought to be reviewed.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition and Scope
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and strike one on mere looking at the record without requiring a long drawn process of reasoning. Where an error on a substantial point of law stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record is made out. If a view adopted by the court is a possible one, it cannot be an error apparent on the face of the record even though another view was also possible.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Distinction Between Review and Appeal
A review has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. If the court reached a wrong conclusion of law, that could be a good ground for appeal but not for review, otherwise the court would be sitting in appeal on its own judgment which is not permissible in law. 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.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Proper Grounds for Review
A review should not seek to challenge the merits of a decision but rather irregularities in the process towards the decision. Instances of what constitutes a mistake or error apparent on face of record include where the applicant was not served with a hearing notice, where the court has not considered amended pleadings or attachments filed, where the court has based its decision on a ground without giving the applicant an opportunity to address the same, and violation of principles of natural justice.
Civil Procedure — Framing of Issues — Materials Court May Consider
A court may frame issues from allegations made on oath by parties or their representatives, allegations made in pleadings or answers to interrogatories, and contents of documents produced by either party. Although an issue may not have been specifically raised during the hearing, where both parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue after full contest, it can be determined and necessarily decided by the court.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (8)

  • Outa Levi v Uganda Transport Corporation [1975] HCB 353
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2001] 2 EA 173
  • Sardar Mohamed v Charan Singh [1959] EA 793
  • Tanitalia Ltd v Mawa Handels Anstalt [1957] EA 215
  • Ahmed H Mulji v Shirinbai Jadavji [1963] EA 217
  • Andrew Bamanya v Shamsherali Zaver (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 70 of 2001)
  • Ggoloba Godfrey v Harriet Kizito (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2006)
  • Zam Nalumansi v Sulaiman Bale (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 2 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Farm Input Care Centre Ltd v Klein Karoo Seed Marketing (PTY) Ltd (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 902 of 2018) [2021] UGCommC 112 (24 September 2021)
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.