Wakilii

James Malinzi v Nicholas Jjengo (Miscellaneous Application 298 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 237 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of adverse remarks made in a ruling in which the applicant was not a party
Decision
Application for review granted; adverse remarks expunged from the earlier ruling

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

Held that adverse remarks made by a judge against a non-party in a ruling constitute an error apparent on the face of the record where the remarks do not add value to the resolution of the suit and the person was not afforded an opportunity to be heard. The court exercised its power of review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules to expunge the offending statement characterising the applicant as a rumormonger and poor administrative manager.

Outcome

Application for review granted; adverse remarks expunged from the earlier ruling

Facts

The applicant, an Assistant Commissioner at Uganda Revenue Authority, was a member of a senior management WhatsApp group. When a colleague posted a message alleging that the respondent (a customs officer reporting to the applicant) had shot three victims, the applicant contacted the respondent to verify the facts. The applicant then shared the respondent's version of events with the management group. The respondent subsequently filed a defamation suit against the colleague who made the original post. That colleague then applied to add the applicant as a third party. In dismissing that application, Hon. Justice Esta Nambayo made adverse remarks characterising the applicant as a rumormonger, gossiper, and poor administrative manager. The applicant, who was not a party to that application and was not heard, applied for review to expunge those remarks on grounds they were untrue, damaging to his professional reputation, and constituted an error apparent on the face of the record.

Issues

  1. Whether the ruling and order by Hon. Lady Justice Esta Nambayo on 3 April 2025 in H.C.M.A No. 365 of 2023 should be reviewed and the adverse, untrue, misleading and offensive remarks made against the Applicant be set aside
  2. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • An order is issued expunging the statement on lines 200-207 on page 7 of the Ruling in H.C.M.A No. 365 of 2023 dated 3 April 2025 which characterised the applicant as a rumormonger, gossiper, and taleteller seeking cheap popularity.
  • The remainder of the ruling remains intact and shall be read henceforth without the redacted parts.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Adverse Remarks Against Non-Party
Where a judge makes adverse personal remarks against a person who is not a party to the proceedings and who was not afforded an opportunity to be heard, and where those remarks do not add value to the resolution of the matter before the court, such remarks constitute an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Review — Locus Standi — Aggrieved Person
Under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act, it suffices that the applicant's interests, rights, or duties are adversely affected by the decree or order sought to be reviewed. A person who is adversely characterised in a ruling, even though not a party to the proceedings, is an aggrieved person entitled to seek review.
Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition
An error apparent on the face of the record is one that stares one in the face and is not debatable; it is a patent, not a latent, mistake. It must be found in the official documents without needing external evidence or lengthy analysis. It is more than just a decision that a higher court might disagree with; it is a decision made without proper legal basis.
Administrative Law — Natural Justice — Right to Be Heard — Adverse Findings
Where a court makes adverse findings against a person, that person must be afforded an opportunity to be heard. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice and amounts to an error on the record.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (2)

  • John Imaniraguha v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 2770 of 2023)
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2001] 2 EA 173

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

James Malinzi v Nicholas Jjengo (Miscellaneous Application 298 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 237 (24 December 2025)
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.