Wakilii

Nanfuka v Nyakerah and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 552 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 25 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of High Court judgment in Civil Suit No. 670 of 2016
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

The court dismissed an application for review of its earlier judgment. The applicant alleged error apparent on the face of the record, arguing the court had misdefined a lease provision. The court held that a complaint about how the court made its decision does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record and crosses the line between review and appeal. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed

Facts

The applicant, Angella Nanfuka, was the unsuccessful party in Civil Suit No. 670 of 2016. She brought an application for review of the High Court's judgment, alleging that it was a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record for the court to redefine a provision in a lease agreement. The applicant's affidavit relied on facts that arose after the judgment was delivered. The respondents opposed the application, averring that the court was functus officio regarding the issues raised.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for review of the judgment in Civil Suit No. 670 of 2016.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Distinction from Appeal
An error apparent on the face of the record is one which is manifest or self-evident and does not require examination or argument to establish it. A complaint about how the court made its decision does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record where it requires re-examination of the court's reasoning.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Distinction from Appeal — Impermissible Crossing of Line
There is a thin line between review and appeal that must never be crossed in the application of Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules. An application for review cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal to challenge the court's decision-making process.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Misdirection in Judgment — Not Error Apparent on Face of Record
A misdirection or error in judgment by a judicial officer on a matter of law cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record and does not provide grounds for review under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Batuk K. Vyas v Surat Municipality AIR (1953) Bom 133
  • Kalokola Kaloli v Nduga Robert (Miscellaneous Application No. 497 of 2014)
  • Edison Kanyabwere v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nanfuka_v_Nyakerah_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._552_of_2022)_[2023]_UGHCLD_25_(10_February_2023)
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.