Wakilii

Lalwak v Opio (MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION No. 0058 OF 2016)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 38 · 2018 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of High Court order awarding damages, arising from civil appeal
Decision
Application 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

Held that a judge other than the one who made the order has jurisdiction to review where the ground is error apparent on the face of the record under Order 46 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. However, an error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument. Where the applicant challenges the correctness of a legal conclusion or the exercise of discretion, the proper remedy is appeal, not review. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant sued the respondent over a land dispute and lost at LC II and LC III Courts. He appealed to the Chief Magistrate's Court and won. The respondent appealed to the High Court, which on 12 December 2014 reversed the Chief Magistrate's decision and ordered the applicant to pay general damages of UGX 2,000,000 and refund UGX 400,000 as part payment of appeal costs. The applicant applied to review that order, contending it was an error to condemn him in general damages for arrest and detention of the respondent in civil prison when this was pursuant to a court order in execution of the Chief Magistrate's decree, without affording him an opportunity to be heard, and when the respondent had not claimed damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to review an order made by another judge on grounds of error apparent on the face of the record.
  2. Whether the award of general damages for arrest and detention pursuant to a court order constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Jurisdiction — Review by Judge Other than Original Judge
A judge other than the one who made an order has jurisdiction to review that order where the ground for review is error apparent on the face of the record under Order 46 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which does not restrict such applications to the original judge.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition and Scope
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument to establish. There is a distinction between a mere erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. 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. An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Review Distinguished from Appeal — Discretionary Decisions
A review may not be granted merely because another judge could have taken a different view of the matter. That the court proceeded on an incorrect exposition of the law or misconstrued a statute is not a proper ground for review but could be a proper ground for appeal. Where the court has made a conscious decision on contested matters and exercised discretion, any challenge to the correctness of that decision sounds in appeal and not in review, otherwise the court would be sitting in appeal on its own judgment which is not permissible in law.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (2)

  • Outa Levi v Uganda Transport Corporation [1975] HCB 353
  • 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.

Lalwak v Opio (MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION No. 0058 OF 2016) [2018] UGHCCD 38 (23 August 2018)
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.