Wakilii

Mubuuke v Uganda Electricity Board (Miscellaneous Application 98 of 2005)

High Court · [2005] UGHCCD 28 · 2005 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of High Court judgment regarding interest on special damages
Decision
Application for review dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 15 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 15 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 16 citing cases on record, 14 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 court's decision on when interest should run on special damages, even if potentially contrary to law, does not constitute an error on the face of the record. Where parties fully canvassed the issue of interest and the court made a decision, any error in the application of law is a ground for appeal, not review. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

The applicant had sued the respondent in Civil Suit No. 1526 of 1999 for special and general damages arising from wrongful termination of employment. In the amended plaint dated 5 May 2003, the applicant claimed interest on special damages from 12 August 1998 (the date of termination) until payment in full. Judgment was delivered in favour of the applicant against the respondent, awarding various sums for special and general damages. The court ordered interest on all damages at 18% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full. The applicant now seeks review, contending that interest on special damages should have run from the date of termination or alternatively from the date of filing suit, in accordance with section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act and judicial practice. The respondent had conceded in written submissions filed on 23 March 2004 that interest on special damages should be awarded from the date of filing suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the court's award of interest on special damages from the date of judgment instead of the date of termination of contract or filing of suit constitutes an error on the face of the record justifying review.
  2. Whether the applicant's remedy lies in review or appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Statutory basis and scope
The right to review, like the right to appeal, must be expressly given by statute and cannot be merely inferred, as review is an exception to the general rule that once judgment is pronounced and signed by court it cannot afterwards be altered or added to by the very court pronouncing it.
Civil Procedure — Review — Grounds for review — Error apparent on the face of the record
For a review to succeed on the basis of an error on the face of the record, the error must be so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on the record. A wrong application of the law or failure to apply the appropriate law is not an error on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Review versus Appeal — Distinction
A review is different from an appeal in that a review is reconsideration of the subject of the suit by the same court under specific conditions set by law, while an appeal is a rehearing by the appellate court. A review does not open questions decided upon between the parties except under specific instances accorded by law, while an appeal re-opens all issues the subject of the appeal. A valid ground for an appeal is not necessarily a ground for review.
Civil Procedure — Review — When remedy lies in appeal not review
Where parties have fully canvassed an issue in their pleadings and submissions and the court has made a decision on that issue, it is immaterial for purposes of review that in making the decision the court might have acted contrary to law. If the court so acted, the remedy is an appeal but not a review.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (1)

  • Sukenya Mukasa & Others v. James Rugambwa [1956] 1 All ALR 92

Cases citing this judgment (15)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mubuuke v Uganda Electricity Board (Miscellaneous Application 98 of 2005) [2005] UGHCCD 28 (20 May 2005)
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.