Wakilii

Hoima District NGO Forum & Ors v Murungi & Ors (Civil Revision 21 of 2013)

High Court · [2013] UGHCCD 131 · 2013 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of a decision in a civil revision application arising from judicial review proceedings
Decision
Review application dismissed

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 cannot be competently filed after an appeal has been lodged. Order 46 r.1 requires that review applications be filed before an appeal is preferred. A judge sitting in review does not have jurisdiction to quash his own decision — review powers extend only to rectification or correction where grounds are satisfied, not to setting aside the entire judgment. Errors in procedure, misapprehension of law, or non-compliance with judgment-writing provisions are matters for appeal, not review.

Outcome

Review application dismissed

Facts

The applicants sought review of the High Court's decision in Civil Revision No. 21 of 2013 delivered on 13 June 2013. The applicants filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal on 20 June 2013. The review application was filed on 4 September 2013, after the appeal had been lodged. The applicants alleged that the court had quashed an extraordinary meeting without certified proceedings before it, that the underlying judicial review application was improper, and that the ruling did not conform to the requirements of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for review was competently filed where an appeal had already been lodged.
  2. Whether the court has jurisdiction to quash its own decision on review.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Competence of Application — Effect of Prior Appeal
An application for review under Order 46 r.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be filed before an appeal is lodged. Where an appeal has already been preferred, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a subsequent review application.
Civil Procedure — Review — Powers of Court — Distinction from Appellate Jurisdiction
A judge sitting in review does not sit as an appellate court. The judge's powers on review are limited to rectification and correction where review grounds are satisfied. The court cannot quash or set aside its own judgment on review.
Civil Procedure — Review — Grounds — Procedural Errors and Misapprehension of Law
Allegations that a judge decided a matter on an incorrect procedural foundation, misapprehended the law, or wrongly exercised discretion do not constitute grounds for review. Such errors must be corrected by way of appeal unless the error is apparent on the face of the record.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (2)

  • Mapalala v British Broadcasting Corporation [2002] 1 EA 132
  • Eastern & Southern African Development Bank v African Green Fields Ltd & Others [2002] 1 EA 377

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hoima District NGO Forum & Ors v Murungi & Ors (Civil Revision 21 of 2013) [2013] UGHCCD 131 (1 October 2013)
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.