Wakilii

Olula & 31 Ors v Attorney General (HCT-02-CV-MA-0068 2015)

High Court · [2016] UGHCCD 50 · 2016 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of High Court ruling dismissing application for judicial review and temporary injunction
Decision
Application for review dismissed; applicants must appeal if they wish to challenge the earlier ruling

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 must establish one of the statutory grounds under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules: discovery of new evidence not previously available, a clerical or arithmetical error, or a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Disagreement with the trial judge's evaluation of evidence or interpretation of law does not constitute a reviewable error. The proper remedy for such complaints is an appeal, not a review. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; applicants must appeal if they wish to challenge the earlier ruling

Facts

The applicants sought to review a High Court ruling by Justice John Eudes Keitirima dismissing their application for judicial review and temporary injunction in MA No. 19/2014. The earlier ruling had been based on preliminary objections raised by the Attorney General, including that the applicants' affidavit was defective for lack of annextures. The applicants claimed the documents had been attached and serially marked but the judge ignored them, and that the judge failed to apply the doctrine of severance of affidavits established in the Besigye case. They argued this constituted discovery of new evidence and an error apparent on the record.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for review is properly before the court.
  2. Whether the applicants established grounds for review under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Grounds for Review — Statutory Requirements
An application for review under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules must satisfy one of three grounds: discovery of new and important evidence not previously available despite due diligence, a clerical or arithmetical mistake, or an error apparent on the face of the record. These grounds are exhaustive and must be strictly proved.
Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Meaning
For a review to succeed on the basis of error on the face of the record, the error must be so manifest and clear that no court would permit it 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 Distinguished from Appeal — Jurisdictional Limits
A court hearing a review application has no jurisdiction to re-evaluate a judgment to determine whether the trial judge ignored evidence, made a mistake in applying the law, or failed to follow precedent. Such complaints must be raised on appeal, not by way of review.
Civil Procedure — Review — Complaint About Evaluation of Evidence — Not Reviewable
Where applicants claim that documents were on the court record but the trial judge ignored them, this is a complaint about evaluation of evidence, not discovery of new evidence. Such a complaint does not establish grounds for review and must be pursued by appeal.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.82
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.4
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.6
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3

Cases cited (2)

  • Col. Dr. Kiiza Besigye v Museveni and Another (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • F.X. Mubuuke v Uganda Electricity Board (HCMA No. 98 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Olula & 31 Ors v Attorney General (HCT-02-CV-MA-0068_2015) [2016] UGHCCD 50 (24 June 2016)
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.