Wakilii

Rukundo v Bakamwanga & Others (Civil Revision 9 of 2020)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 138 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of High Court judgment arising from Civil Suit No. 9 of 2011
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 the application for review. The applicant sought to challenge the merits of an earlier judgment that ordered distribution of an estate according to a proposed scheme despite finding a valid will existed. The court held that the applicant was attempting to use review as an appeal in disguise. The alleged inconsistency required reasoning and scrutiny of law and facts, which does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. Review cannot be used to re-argue a case or reverse a decision on its merits.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed

Facts

The applicant sought review of a High Court judgment in Civil Suit No. 9 of 2011 concerning distribution of the estate of the late Bakamwanga. The earlier judgment had found that a valid will existed and appointed the first plaintiff and defendant to apply for letters of administration with will annexed. However, the same judgment ordered that distribution follow a proposed scheme filed by the plaintiffs on 17 May 2019. The applicant contended this created an inconsistency, as implementing the proposed distribution formula would violate the provisions of the will. The earlier judgment had noted that the appointed executors failed to apply for grant of probate, the defendant had built on family land not provided for in the will, cattle had dwindled from fifteen to five, and a banana plantation had withered. At locus, parties had been amenable to distribution without following the will's dictates, and the court had guided them toward equitable distribution considering the defendant's status as customary heir and the widow's need for a matrimonial home with land.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court judgment dated 17 June 2019 in HCT-05-CV-CS-0009-2011 contained an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
  2. Whether the order directing distribution according to a proposed scheme was inconsistent with the finding that a valid will existed and the appointment of administrators with will annexed.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Test
For an error to be apparent on the face of the record under Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, it must be self-evident and not require a long-drawn process of reasoning or elaborate argument to establish. An error which has to be detected by travelling beyond the record or by reasoning on points where two opinions are conceivable cannot be said to be apparent on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Distinction from Appeal — Scope of Review
Review of a judgment has a limited purpose and must not be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. The purpose of review is not to provide a back door method by which unsuccessful litigants can seek to re-argue their cause or challenge the merits of a decision. Where an applicant seeks a complete reversal of a decision through reasoning and scrutiny of law and facts, this falls outside the purview of review and is properly the preserve of an appellate court.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Erroneous Decision versus Apparent Error
There is a real distinction between a mere erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. If a view adopted by the court in the original decision is a possible one, it cannot be an error apparent on the face of the record even though another view was also possible. Mere error or wrong view is no ground for review although it may be ground for appeal.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

  • Independent Medico Legal Unit v Attorney General of Kenya (EACJ Application No. 2 of 2012)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2001] 2 EA 173
  • Farm Inputs Care Centre Ltd v Klien Karoo Seeds Marketing (Pty) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rukundo v Bakamwanga & Others (Civil Revision 9 of 2020) [2022] UGHC 138 (15 December 2022)
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.