Wakilii

Sewanyana v Aliker (Civil Application 40 of 91)

Supreme Court · [1992] UGSC 9 · 1992 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for review of its own appellate judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1990 and for admission of newly discovered evidence, on the ground of fraud.
Decision
Application for review dismissed with costs; applicant left to bring a fresh suit in the High Court to prove the alleged fraud.

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 Supreme Court considered whether it could set aside its own final judgment in a civil appeal on the ground that a witness had given false evidence. The Court held that fraud vitiates a judgment throughout, and that under its inherent jurisdiction preserved by Rule 1(3) of the Supreme Court Rules it could recall and set aside even a perfected judgment tainted by fraud. However, the applicant produced no new evidence establishing fraud; his own witness's affidavit confirmed the 1982 minute relied upon. The Court therefore declined to exercise its inherent powers, left the applicant to bring a fresh suit to prove the alleged fraud, and dismissed the application with costs.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs; applicant left to bring a fresh suit in the High Court to prove the alleged fraud.

Facts

The underlying dispute concerned a lease over premises in Nansana. The trial court and, on appeal, the Supreme Court found that any approval of the applicant's lease application in August 1982 was made without authority while an existing lease in favour of the respondent, Martin Aliker (as trustee for certain beneficiaries), remained on foot. The proper allocation took place in 1986, when both men applied and the applicant lost. After his appeal failed, the applicant alleged that a senior Registrar of Titles, Ms Mayiga, had given false evidence about the 1982 approval and had concealed relevant documents while in office, which became available only after her removal. On that basis he moved the Court to admit fresh evidence and reopen the matter, contending the judgment was procured by fraud.

Issues

  1. Whether fraud, if established, vitiates a final judgment of the court.
  2. Whether the Supreme Court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own perfected judgment by motion for a new trial, or whether the applicant must instead bring a fresh suit.
  3. Whether the applicant established new evidence of fraud sufficient to warrant setting aside the judgment.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Inherent Jurisdiction — Setting aside a final perfected judgment for fraud
The Supreme Court retains inherent jurisdiction, preserved by Rule 1(3) of the Supreme Court Rules, to recall and set aside its own judgment even after it has been perfected where that judgment is shown to be tainted by fraud.
Civil Procedure — Fraud — Effect on judgments
A judgment that is tainted and affected by fraudulent conduct is tainted throughout, and the whole of it must fail.
Civil Procedure — Review — Proper procedure for alleging fraud against a judgment
Where a final judgment is impugned for fraud, the better course is generally to bring fresh independent proceedings in which the fraud can be defined, fought out and proved, although a motion for a new trial may in some cases be a more convenient remedy.
Civil Procedure — New trial — Burden on applicant to allege and prove fraud
An applicant seeking to set aside a judgment on the ground of fraud must both allege and prove the fraud by adducing genuine new evidence; bare assertion unsupported by a search of the relevant records is insufficient.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Supreme Court Rules r.1(3)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.35
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.1(3)
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Act (Kenya) s.3(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act

Cases cited (4)

  • Hip Foong Hing v Neotia & Co [1918] AC 888
  • Somani v Shirinkhanu (No.2) [1971] EA 79
  • Aviagents Ltd v Balstravest Investments Ltd [1966] 1 All ER 450
  • Lakhamshi Brothers Ltd v Raja & Sons Ltd [1966] EA 313

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sewanyana v Aliker (Civil Application 40 of 91) [1992] UGSC 9 (3 February 1992)
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.