Wakilii

Omnyokol v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Application 10 of 2022)

East African Court of Justice · [2023] EACJ 2 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review and setting aside of the Appellate Division's ruling dated 10 May 2022 arising from Reference No. 1 of 2015
Decision
Application for review dismissed; underlying Reference No. 1 of 2015 to proceed before the First Instance Division on the basis of issues previously framed

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 East African Court of Justice Appellate Division dismissed the Applicant's application for review of its ruling dated 10 May 2022. The Court held that the Applicant failed to satisfy any of the grounds for review under Article 35(3) of the Treaty and rule 83 of the Rules: no new evidence was discovered, no error apparent on the face of the record existed, and no injustice was occasioned. The ruling under review had adopted a consent order agreed by the parties adding an additional issue for determination in the underlying reference. The Court found the application unmeritorious and awarded costs to the Respondent.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; underlying Reference No. 1 of 2015 to proceed before the First Instance Division on the basis of issues previously framed

Facts

The Applicant filed Reference No. 1 of 2015 before the First Instance Division of the East African Court of Justice. After a scheduling conference in 2017, the Applicant sought to add additional issues for determination. The Trial Court dismissed that application. The Applicant appealed, but the Appellate Division struck out the appeal in 2018, finding it misconceived and directing the Reference to proceed. The Applicant then filed multiple applications seeking review, interpretation, and reconsideration. On 10 May 2022, the parties reached a consent order before the Appellate Division agreeing to add one additional issue for determination in the Reference. The Court adopted that consent and directed the hearing to proceed. The Applicant then filed this application seeking review and setting aside of the 10 May 2022 ruling, claiming his mind had slipped when he consented and that a second issue he wanted was omitted.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court should review and set aside its ruling dated 10 May 2022.
  2. Whether the Applicant satisfied the grounds for review under Article 35(3) of the Treaty and rule 83 of the Rules.
  3. Whether rule 4 (inherent powers) can confer jurisdiction to bring an application for review.
  4. Whether the Court's ruling of 10 May 2022 contained mistake, fraud or error apparent on the face of the record.
  5. Whether an injustice was occasioned to the Applicant by the ruling of 10 May 2022.

Orders

  • Application dismissed in its entirety.
  • Applicant to bear the costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Review Jurisdiction — Grounds for Review — Discovery of New Evidence
An application for review on the ground of discovery of new and important evidence requires the applicant to prove that the evidence was not within the applicant's knowledge after exercise of due diligence and could not have been produced at the time of the judgment or ruling. Where an applicant was aware of the issues sought to be raised and was capable of producing them at the time of the ruling, the ground of discovery of new evidence has no application.
Review Jurisdiction — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not one that requires elaborate argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning to detect. No error can be said to be apparent where one has to travel beyond the record to see the correctness of the judgment. It must be an error which strikes on merely looking at the record and would not require reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
Review Jurisdiction — Distinction from Appellate Jurisdiction
The review jurisdiction of a court cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merit. That would be in the province of a court of appeal. A review cannot be brought merely for fresh hearing or argument or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier. A review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. The purpose of review jurisdiction is not to provide a back door by which unsuccessful litigants can seek to re-argue their cases.
Inherent Powers — Limitation — Cannot Confer Jurisdiction
The inherent powers of a court under rule 4 of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2019 are not substantive powers that can open up foundations to new lines of litigation or donate jurisdiction. Inherent powers are endowments that enable the court to regulate its internal conduct and ensure its mode of discharge of duty is conscionable, fair and just. A party is not allowed to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the court when there is a substantive provision of the Rules providing for the right of access to the court.
Review Jurisdiction — Scope — Rulings and Judgments
The East African Court of Justice has jurisdiction to review both judgments and rulings. Although Article 35(3) of the Treaty refers to review of a judgment, when read together with Article 1 which defines judgment to include a ruling, order, directive or decree, the Court may review a ruling so long as the conditions set in the Treaty and the Rules are satisfied.
Costs — Conduct of Parties — Unmeritorious Applications
In determining whether there are good reasons to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event, the court must bear in mind the conduct of a party. Where an applicant has persisted in presentation of appeals and applications totally devoid of merit whose combined effect has been to delay the hearing and determination of the underlying matter, there is no good reason to depart from the rule that costs follow the event.

Legislation cited (14)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 1
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 6(d)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 7(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 35(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 35(3)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2019 rule 2
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2019 rule 4
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2019 rule 52
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2019 rule 63(4)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2019 rule 83
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2019 rule 83(2)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2019 rule 83(3)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2019 rule 122
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure 2019 rule 127

Cases cited (10)

  • Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi v Secretary General, East African Community & Another (Appeal No. 2 of 2019)
  • Geoffrey Magezi v National Medical Stores (Appeal No. 2 of 2016)
  • Board of Governors, Moi High School, Kabarak v. Malcolm Bell [2013] eKLR
  • Oosthuiven v. Road Accident Fund (258/10) [2011] ZASCA 118
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda v Johnson Akol Omunyokol (Application No. 10 of 2015)
  • Angella Amudo v Secretary General, East African Community (Appeal No. 4 of 2014)
  • Independent Medical Legal Unit v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya (Application No. 2 of 2012)
  • Christopher Mtikila v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania & Others (Application No. 8 of 2007)
  • Paul John Mhozya v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 14 of 2018)
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v. Kago [2001] 2 EA 173

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Omnyokol v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Application 10 of 2022) [2023] EACJ 2 (22 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.