Wakilii

Setengeri v Asiimwe (Miscellaneous Application 56 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 1034 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of interlocutory order granting leave to appear and defend summary suit
Decision
Application for review dismissed; applicant directed to focus on merits of main suit

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 no error apparent on the face of the record existed in the court's earlier ruling on time computation for filing leave to appear and defend a summary suit. The issue raised required re-examination and re-evaluation of the court's decision, which is the province of an appellate court, not a review application. A review application cannot be used to sit as an appellate court over the court's own decision. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; applicant directed to focus on merits of main suit

Facts

The applicant filed a summary suit for recovery of UGX 60,000,000. Summons were served on the respondent on 28 November 2023. The respondent filed Miscellaneous Application No. 110 of 2023 seeking unconditional leave to appear and defend. The court granted unconditional leave on 25 March 2024, finding the application was filed within the ten-day period prescribed under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant then filed a notice of appeal, later withdrew it on 19 June 2024, and filed this review application on the same date, challenging the court's time computation.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a mistake or error apparent on the court record in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 110 of 2023 that calls for review.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Test for Determining Whether Error Exists
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and strike one by mere looking at the record without requiring any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. It must be a patent, manifest and self-evident error which stares one in the face and about which there could reasonably be no two opinions.
Civil Procedure — Review — Distinction Between Error Apparent and Erroneous Decision — Scope of Review
There is a real distinction between a mere erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. Where a view adopted by the court in the original record 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 an appeal.
Civil Procedure — Review — Improper Use of Review to Re-examine Court's Decision — Appeal as Proper Remedy
A review application cannot be used to require the court to re-examine, re-evaluate and revisit its decision so as to arrive at another decision desired by the applicant. Such re-examination is the preserve of the appellate court. Where a party is aggrieved with the court's decision, the proper recourse is to appeal, not to apply for review.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2001] 2 EA 173
  • Farm Inputs Care Centre Ltd v Klein Karoo Seeds Marketing (PTY) Ltd
  • Edison Kanvabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • Independent Medico Legal Unit v. The Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya (Application No. 2 of 2012; Arising from Appeal No. 1 of 2011)
  • MK Creditors Ltd v Owora Patrick (Miscellaneous Application No. 143 of 2015)
  • Bamugaya Deo v Peter Tinkasimire & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 90 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Setengeri v Asiimwe (Miscellaneous Application 56 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1034 (30 October 2024)
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.