Wakilii

National Resistance Movement v Hon Akamba Paul [2026] UGHCCD 243

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the High Court for review of its own ruling in a judicial review cause (Miscellaneous Cause No. 250 of 2025)
Decision
Application for review dismissed with costs; the ruling in HCMC No. 250 of 2025 stands undisturbed

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 to review its earlier judicial review ruling that an NRM Election Disputes Tribunal acted with procedural impropriety by re-tallying votes in the petitioner's absence. Held that an error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and admit of no two opinions; where a statutory provision (Regulation 45 of the NRM Election Regulations 2025) is capable of divergent judicial interpretations, and another judge has taken a different view, no reviewable error arises. An applicant seeking reversal of the court's discretionary interpretation of procedural propriety is in substance pursuing a disguised appeal, whose proper forum is the Court of Appeal, not review under Order 46.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs; the ruling in HCMC No. 250 of 2025 stands undisturbed

Facts

The respondent had filed HCMC No. 250 of 2025, a judicial review application challenging the decision of the applicant party's Election Disputes Tribunal, which upheld the declaration of another aspirant as NRM flag bearer for Busiki Constituency. On 17 October 2025 the court granted relief, declaring that the tribunal's re-tallying of votes without according the respondent an opportunity to witness the exercise was procedurally illegal, irregular and irrational, and reinstated him as flag bearer. The party then applied for review, contending through its Director of Legal Services that the finding that parties must be present when the tribunal evaluates evidence was a mistake and an error apparent on the face of the record, since the tribunal merely verified declaration of results forms submitted by the parties after a hearing at which they were legally represented, and no law requires parties to witness internal evaluation of documentary evidence. It relied on another High Court decision interpreting Regulation 45 of the NRM Election Regulations 2025 differently. The respondent replied that re-tallying is a physical verification process requiring transparency, that no error existed, and that the application was a disguised appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the decision of the court in HCMC No. 250 of 2025 contained a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Application is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Meaning of "Error Apparent on the Face of the Record"
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and stare one in the face such that there could reasonably be no two opinions about it; an error established only by a long-drawn process of reasoning, or on a point on which two views are conceivably possible, is not an error apparent on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Review — Divergent Judicial Opinions Not a Ground for Review
The fact that another judge has taken or could take a different view of the same provision of law and facts does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record; where the view adopted in the original decision is a possible one, review does not lie even though another view was also possible.
Civil Procedure — Review Distinguished from Appeal — Disguised Appeals
A review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules cannot be used to re-litigate a conclusion reached by the court in the conscious exercise of its discretion or its interpretation of the law; misconstruing a statute is a ground of appeal, not review, since the court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment.
Electoral Law — Party Primaries — Re-tally of Votes by Election Disputes Tribunal — Presence of Parties
Regulation 45 of the National Resistance Movement Election Regulations 2025, while not expressly compelling the presence of parties during a re-tally, does not bar their presence; where the controversy before the tribunal is itself about improper tallying, fairness and accountability may require that the parties be present during the re-tally.
Judicial Review — Procedural Impropriety — Findings on Fair Hearing Not Reviewable by the Same Court
A finding that a domestic tribunal acted with procedural impropriety by determining a dispute in the absence of an affected party is a substantive determination on the merits; a party aggrieved by such a finding must appeal rather than seek review before the same court.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates Vs Kago [2001] 2 EA 173
  • Lalwak v Opio (Miscellaneous Application No. 0058 of 2016)
  • Isebirye Iddi v Naleh Mpate and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0214 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

National Resistance Movement v Hon Akamba Paul [2026] UGHCCD 243 (23 July 2026)
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.