Wakilii

Muhenda v Mirembe (Miscellaneous Application 63 of 2015)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 1027 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of High Court ruling dismissing Civil Suit No. 16 of 2014 on limitation grounds
Decision
Application for review dismissed

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 an application for review cannot be used to challenge findings of fact by a trial judge regarding when a cause of action arose. Where establishing the alleged error requires re-evaluation of pleadings and evidence, such matters fall within appellate jurisdiction, not review jurisdiction. The dispute over whether execution occurred in 2001 or 2003 involved factual determination requiring examination of evidence, not a self-evident error apparent on the record.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed

Facts

The applicant, as administrator of his late mother's estate, filed Civil Suit No. 16 of 2014 challenging execution conducted in relation to a decree from 1976. The trial judge dismissed the suit as time-barred, finding that execution occurred in 2001 (warrant signed 4 June 2001, executed 6 August 2001), making the 2014 suit filed beyond the 12-year limitation period. The applicant sought review, arguing the trial judge erred because execution actually occurred in 2003 according to Supreme Court returns, thus the suit was within time. The respondent opposed, maintaining execution occurred in 2001.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the court record in Civil Suit No. 16 of 2014 to warrant a review.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Scope of Review Jurisdiction — Distinction from Appeal
Review jurisdiction under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not extend to re-examining findings of fact by a trial judge. Where establishing an alleged error requires re-evaluation of pleadings and documentary evidence, the proper remedy is appeal, not review.
Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition and Test
An error apparent on the face of the record is one that is self-evident and does not require extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. It must be so manifest and clear that no court would permit it to remain on the record, and must not require detailed examination, scrutiny, or elucidation of facts or legal positions.
Civil Procedure — Review — Improper Use as Substitute for Appeal
A judge hearing a review application cannot sit as an appellate court to challenge findings of the same court. Where an applicant disputes a trial judge's factual determination, the proper recourse is to lodge an appeal to the Court of Appeal, not to seek review.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • In Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd [1979] HCB
  • Levi Outa v Uganda Transport Company [1995] HCB 340
  • Mr. Satish Kumar Vs. Chief Secretary, RA No. 51/2013 and MA No. 688/2013
  • Bamugaya Deo v Peter Tinkasimire & Another (HCMA No. 90 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Muhenda v Mirembe (Miscellaneous Application 63 of 2015) [2024] UGHC 1027 (30 October 2024)
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.