Wakilii

Ongole James Michael v Electoral Commission and Another (Misc. Application No. 46 2006) (Misc. Application No. 46 2006)

High Court · [2006] UGHC 45 · 2006 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of interlocutory order arising from election petition
Decision
Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondents

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

Application for review dismissed. The court held that the applicant failed to establish any of the statutory grounds for review under s.82 of the Civil Procedure Act and O.46 r.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. No mistake apparent on the face of the record, new and important matter, or sufficient cause was demonstrated. The power to review is a legal mechanism that must be invoked in accordance with law and should not serve as an alternative to appeals.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

The applicant/petitioner in an election petition sought review of the court's order rejecting late affidavits filed without leave. The petition was scheduled for hearing on 22 January 2006, but hearing did not commence because the petitioner filed the application for review. The applicant claimed he went to swear his affidavit on 13 November 2006 but magistrates were not at the station, and argued that court had not given time within which to stop filing affidavits. The court had previously exercised its discretion to strike out new affidavits filed by the petitioner during scheduling. The respondents opposed the application, arguing it did not meet the requirements for review and that allowing late affidavits would prejudice them and delay the expeditious disposal of the election petition.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should review its order rejecting late affidavits filed without leave.
  2. Whether the applicant established sufficient grounds under the Civil Procedure Act s.82 and Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.1 to warrant review.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Grounds for Review — Statutory Requirements
An order for review can successfully be sought only when the legal requirements as enacted under s.82 of the Civil Procedure Act and O.46 r.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules exist, including that the order is appellable but no appeal has been preferred, or that new and important matter or evidence has been discovered which could not have been produced before after exercising due diligence, or that there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or that sufficient cause exists to warrant review.
Civil Procedure — Review — Review Distinguished from Appeal
The power to review exercisable by the High Court under s.82 of the Civil Procedure Act and O.46 r.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules should not be exercised for the convenience of any given legal situation and should not be an alternative to appeals. What is a good ground for appeal may not be a good ground for review.
Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Filing of Affidavits — Time Limits
In election petitions, the filing of affidavits is regulated by the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules S.I. 141-2 Rules 5, 6, 7 and 8, the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Local Government Act. Election petitions should not be placed in a special category of suits where pleadings should never end or be regulated; anything done outside the regulations should be done with leave of court and/or approval of the opposite party.

Legislation cited (7)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ongole James Michael v Electoral Commission and Another (Misc. Application No. 46_2006) (Misc. Application No. 46_2006) [2006] UGHC 45 (5 December 2006)
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.