Wakilii

Monica Komujuni v Hass Scientific and Medical Suppliers Ltd (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 636 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 34 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment and decree arising from Civil Suit No. 363 of 2014
Decision
Application for review dismissed; original judgment and decree upheld

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 court dismissed the application for review. The applicant failed to establish discovery of new and important evidence that could not have been obtained with due diligence at trial. The alleged new evidence concerning the value of the machine did not relate to the central issue of whether the applicant had authority to donate it. No error apparent on the face of the record was established. The judgment and decree of Civil Suit No. 363 of 2014 were upheld.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; original judgment and decree upheld

Facts

The applicant sought review of a judgment in Civil Suit No. 363 of 2014 in which she had been found liable for misappropriating and converting a medical machine worth USD 42,000 by donating it to Naguru hospital without authorization. The applicant alleged that she was not properly advised by her former advocates, that she had obtained new evidence from URA showing she was a director of the respondent company at the time of the donation, and that the machine's value was incorrectly determined. The respondent opposed, stating the applicant had been duly represented throughout the trial, that the claim was based on personal misappropriation and conversion, and that the applicant was the company's country manager, not a director.

Issues

  1. Whether there is discovery of new and important matters of evidence previously overlooked?
  2. Whether there is a mistake or error on the face of the record?
  3. What remedies are awardable to the parties?

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The judgment and decree of this court vide Civil Suit No. 363 of 2014 is upheld.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Discovery of New Evidence — Test for Admission
For new evidence to ground a review of judgment under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, three conditions must be satisfied: first, the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence at trial; second, the evidence must probably have an important influence on the case outcome; and third, the evidence must be apparently credible.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Disguised Appeals
A review application that seeks to re-argue the merits of a case on grounds that do not relate to the central issue determined at trial amounts to a disguised appeal and should be discouraged by the court.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident, manifest, and patent, requiring no elaborate argument or process of reasoning to detect. It must be an error that strikes one merely by looking at the record, without travelling beyond the record or requiring discussion of evidence. No error is apparent where conceivably two opinions could reasonably be entertained about the point.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (4)

  • Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR
  • Attorney General of Uganda v East African Law Society (EACJ Appeal No. 1 of 2013)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (SCCA No. 6 of 2004)
  • Independent Medico Legal Unit v Attorney General of Kenya (EACJ Application No. 2 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Monica Komujuni v Hass Scientific and Medical Suppliers Ltd (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 636 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 34 (27 May 2021)
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.