Wakilii

Informer No.TCI 002 07 05-06 v Uganda Revenue Authority (Misc.App.No. 202 of 2010)

High Court · [2010] UGHC 43 · 2010 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment arising from civil suit
Decision
Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 was dismissed where the applicant sought to resile from an agreed fact upon which judgment was based. The court held that where parties and their counsel agreed during conferencing on a specific amount as the basis for the claim, and judgment was entered on that agreed amount, no apparent error or mistake on the face of the record existed to justify review. The court was functus officio and the proper remedy was appeal, not review.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant provided information to Uganda Revenue Authority regarding under-declaration of tax by Tororo Cement Industries Ltd. The respondent collected undeclared taxes from the company. The applicant initially claimed his informer's reward should be based on UGX 5,422,453,800 but during conferencing in the original civil suit, both parties and their counsel agreed that the amount collected was UGX 4,072,453,800. Judgment was entered based on this agreed figure. The applicant was paid UGX 199,910,000 as informer's reward. Nearly a year after judgment, the applicant changed lawyers and filed an application for review claiming it was an apparent error for the court to have based its judgment on the agreed amount of UGX 4,072,453,800.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has established grounds for review of the judgment under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules
  2. Whether there was an apparent error or mistake on the face of the record justifying review

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Grounds for Review — Apparent Error on Face of Record
An apparent error or mistake on the face of the record justifying review does not arise where parties and their counsel expressly agreed to a fact during conferencing and judgment was entered on the basis of that agreed fact.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Functus Officio — Agreed Facts
Where a court determines an issue based on facts agreed between the parties, the court becomes functus officio and cannot review its judgment on the ground that one party subsequently wishes to resile from the agreement.
Civil Procedure — Review versus Appeal — Proper Remedy
Where a party is aggrieved by a position reached between himself, his counsel and the opposing party during conferencing, the proper remedy is an appeal to protect his interest, not an application for review.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (1)

  • Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd [1971] HCB 12

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Informer No.TCI_002_07_05-06 v Uganda Revenue Authority (Misc.App.No. 202 of 2010) [2010] UGHC 43 (5 September 2010)
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.