Wakilii

Lubyayi Kisiki v Kagimu (Election Application 1 of 2003)

Court of Appeal · [2003] UGCA 18 · 2003 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to review and set aside the Court of Appeal's costs order in an election appeal
Decision
Application to review the costs order dismissed with costs; earlier judgment stands

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 applicant sought to have the Court of Appeal set aside its costs order and effectively reverse its earlier judgment upholding the nullification of his election, arguing the respondent had misled the courts with uncertified documents. The Court held that the effect of the motion was to request it to reverse itself, which it had no jurisdiction to do. The slip rule and inherent jurisdiction under rules 1(3), 35 and 42 only permit correction of clerical or accidental errors or omissions that fail to give effect to the court's intention, not a rehearing on the merits. Counsel failed to identify any inadvertent omission. The decision had been deliberate and final. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application to review the costs order dismissed with costs; earlier judgment stands

Facts

The applicant and respondent contested the Bukomansombi Constituency parliamentary elections in Masaka District held on 26 June 2001, in which the applicant was declared winner. The respondent petitioned the High Court to nullify the result, alleging the applicant was not qualified to be a Member of Parliament and had been nominated on invalid papers presented to UNEB and the Electoral Commission claiming an equivalent to an 'A' Level Certificate. The High Court nullified the election on that ground, and the Court of Appeal upheld the nullification on appeal, awarding costs to the respondent in both courts. The applicant subsequently filed this notice of motion seeking to have the costs order set aside and substituted with an order that each party bear its own costs, contending that the courts had been misled into relying on an uncertified document (exhibit P1) obtained from the Electoral Commission rather than certified documents from UNEB, and that the fault lay with UNEB.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction under rules 1(3), 35 and 42 of its rules to revisit and reverse its own final judgment on costs.
  2. Whether the application fell within the principles governing correction of errors or accidental slips in a judgment.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule and Inherent Jurisdiction — Limits of Power to Correct Own Judgment
A court's inherent jurisdiction and the slip rule permit only the correction of clerical or arithmetic mistakes, or errors arising from an accidental slip or omission that failed to give effect to the court's intention at the time judgment was given; they do not empower the court to sit on appeal against, or reverse, its own final judgment in the same proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Applications to Review Judgment — Burden to Identify Inadvertent Omission
An applicant seeking to invoke the slip rule must identify a specific matter the court inadvertently omitted or overlooked; where the application in substance asks the court to re-evaluate evidence already considered and reverse its decision, it is misconceived and must be dismissed.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (4)

  • Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust v General Parts (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 8 of 2001)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Oil Seed (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 15 of 1997)
  • Roko Construction Company v Uganda Cooperative Transport Union (Civil Application No. 32 of 1972)
  • Amama Mbabazi v Musinguzi Ganga James (Civil Application No. 19 of 2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lubyayi Kisiki v Kagimu (Election Application 1 of 2003) [2003] UGCA 18 (19 September 2003)
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.