Wakilii

Independent Medico Legal Unit v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya

East African Court of Justice · [2013] EACJ 144 · 2013 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of the Appellate Division's judgment dated 15 March 2012, arising from Appeal No. 1 of 2011
Decision
Application for review 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

The Appellate Division of the East African Court of Justice has express jurisdiction under Article 35(3) of the Treaty for East African Integration and Rule 72 of the Court Rules to review its own decisions in appropriate cases. However, the grounds adduced by the Applicant for review of the Court's judgment of 15 March 2012 may be good grounds for a further appeal but are not valid grounds for review under the law. The Application for review was denied.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed

Facts

The Independent Medico Legal Unit (IMLU) filed an application seeking review of the Appellate Division's judgment dated 15 March 2012, which had dismissed IMLU's appeal against the First Instance Division's decision of 29 June 2011. The underlying Reference concerned the responsibility of Kenya under the Treaty for East African Integration to investigate, prosecute, punish and sanction perpetrators and compensate victims of atrocities committed in the Mt. Elgon area during the 2006-2009 violent Sabaot Land rebellion. The First Instance Division had upheld a preliminary objection raised by the Attorney General of Kenya, and the Appellate Division affirmed that ruling. IMLU sought review on thirty grounds, primarily alleging errors apparent on the face of the record and injustice. The Attorney General objected to the Appellate Division's jurisdiction to review its own judgments.

Issues

  1. Whether the Appellate Division of the East African Court of Justice has jurisdiction to review its own decisions, orders, rulings and judgments.
  2. Whether the instant Application is a proper case for the Court to exercise its power to review its previous judgment dated 15 March 2012.

Orders

  • The Application for review is denied.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs of this Application.

Rules and key headnotes

Appellate Jurisdiction — Review Power — Jurisdiction of Appellate Division to Review Own Judgments
The Appellate Division of the East African Court of Justice has express jurisdiction under Article 35(3) of the Treaty for East African Integration and Rule 72 of the Court Rules to review its own decisions and judgments in appropriate cases, notwithstanding that it is a final court of appeal from which no further appeal lies.
Treaty Interpretation — Meaning of 'the Court' — Holistic Construction
The expression 'the Court' in Article 35 of the Treaty for East African Integration applies to both the First Instance Division and the Appellate Division without distinction, as Article 23(2) provides that the Court consists of both Divisions as integral constituent units of one undivided Court.
Review Jurisdiction — Distinction from Appellate Jurisdiction — Scope and Limits
The power of review is not to be confused with appellate power. Review has a limited purpose and must not be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. The purpose of review is not to provide a back door method by which unsuccessful litigants can seek to re-argue their cases.
Review Jurisdiction — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition and Test
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not one that has to be detected by a process of reasoning. It must be a patent, manifest and self-evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish. Without elaborate argument, one must be able to point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it.
Review Jurisdiction — Grounds for Review — Article 35(3) of EAC Treaty
To qualify for review under Article 35(3) of the Treaty for East African Integration, an application must fulfil any or all of the specified conditions: discovery of new facts unknown to both the Court and the party at the time of judgment which could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered earlier, or some mistake, fraud or error on the face of the record, or because an injustice has been done.
Review Jurisdiction — Erroneous Decision on Merits — Not Ground for Review
The review jurisdiction of a court cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision of the court was erroneous on merit. That would be in the province of a court of appeal. If a view held by the court in the original record is a possible one, it cannot be an error apparent on the face of the record even though another view was also possible.
Appellate Jurisdiction — Scope of Appellate Review — Mixed Questions of Fact and Law
Where an issue on appeal involves mixed questions of fact and law, it becomes near impossible to separate the two into neat boxes. An appellate court limited to points of law may look at the lower court's findings of fact to determine whether that court correctly addressed itself to the issues and facts before it.

Legislation cited (27)

  • Treaty for East African Integration Article 1
  • Treaty for East African Integration Article 9
  • Treaty for East African Integration Article 23
  • Treaty for East African Integration Article 24
  • Treaty for East African Integration Article 27
  • Treaty for East African Integration Article 28
  • Treaty for East African Integration Article 29
  • Treaty for East African Integration Article 30
  • Treaty for East African Integration Article 30(2)
  • Treaty for East African Integration Article 31
  • Treaty for East African Integration Article 32
  • Treaty for East African Integration Article 34
  • Treaty for East African Integration Article 35
  • Treaty for East African Integration Article 35(2)
  • Treaty for East African Integration Article 35(3)
  • Treaty for East African Integration Article 35A
  • Treaty for East African Integration Article 36
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 72
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure Rule 99
  • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Act (Kenya) s.3(2)
  • Code of Civil Procedure (India) s.114
  • Code of Civil Procedure (India) Order XLVII
  • Constitution of India Article 137
  • Constitution of India Article 145
  • Constitution of India Article 226
  • Law No. 21/2012 of 14/06/2012 (Rwanda)

Cases cited (24)

  • Lakamshi Brothers v Raja & Sons [1966] EA 313
  • Somani v Shirinkhanu (No. 2) [1971] EA 79
  • Sewanyana v Martin Aliker (Civil Application No. 4 of 1991)
  • Transport Equipment Limited v Devra P. Valambhia (1998 TLR 89)
  • Rafiki Enterprises Ltd v Kingsway & Automart Ltd (Civil Application No. Nai. 375 of 1996)
  • Musiara Ltd v Ntimana [2005] EA 317
  • Chris Mahinda v Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd (Civil Application No. Nai. 174 of 2005)
  • Jasbir Singh Rai v Tarlochan Singh Rai (Civil Application No. Nai. CA 307 of 2003)
  • Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No. 2) [1993] HCA 6
  • Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Ariban Pishak Sharma (1979) 45CC 389
  • Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra (Writ Petition (civil) 509 of 1997)
  • London Street Tramways Company Ltd v London Council [1898] AC 375
  • Haridas v Smt. Usha Rani Banik (Appeal (civil) 7948 of 2004)
  • Murray v IRC [1918] AC 541
  • Fawcett Properties v Buckingham County Council [1960] 3 All ER 503
  • PTA Bank v Martin Ogang (Reference Revision No. 1/2001)
  • Dr. Kabeta Muleya v COMESA & Erastus Mwencha (Revision Application No. 1/2002)
  • R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex Parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2) [1999] 1 All ER 577
  • Taylor & Anor v Lawrence & Anor [2002] 2 All ER 353
  • Smti Meera Bhanja v Smti Nirmala Kumari (Choudry) (1995 SC 455)
  • Thugabhadra Industries Ltd v Government of Andhra Pradesh (1964 AIR 1372)
  • Sarala Mudgal v Union of India
  • Hoystead v Commissioner of Taxation [1926] AC 155
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Moses Kipkolum Kogo (Civil Appeal No. 322 of 2000)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Independent Medico Legal Unit v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya [2013] EACJ 144 (1 March 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.