Wakilii

Sure Telecom v Brian Azemchap (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 165 of 2019)

Industrial Court · [2020] UGIC 61 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of Industrial Court award arising from Labour Dispute Appeal No. 05 of 2017
Decision
Application for review dismissed; original award in LDA No. 005/2017 stands

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 Industrial Court dismissed an application for review of its earlier award. The court held that the alleged errors were not apparent on the face of the record but required elaborate argumentation to establish. The grounds raised amounted to an appeal against the court's decision rather than a review for self-evident errors. Once the court issues a decree it is functus officio and review is an exception intended only to correct apparent errors, not to change the decision.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; original award in LDA No. 005/2017 stands

Facts

Sure Telecom applied to the Industrial Court to review its award in Labour Dispute Appeal No. 005 of 2017 concerning Brian Azemchap. The applicant alleged errors apparent on the face of the record, including that the court determined questions of fact without jurisdiction, framed an issue of mixed law and fact after striking out similar grounds, made findings without a record of appeal, entertained a general ground of appeal, and awarded excessive damages of USD 450,000 despite the respondent having received UGX 150,000,000 on dismissal. The respondent opposed the application, arguing it was an appeal in the guise of a review and that the alleged errors were not self-evident but required investigation and elaborate argument.

Issues

  1. Whether the Industrial Court should review its award in Labour Dispute Appeal No. 5 of 2017 on the ground of errors apparent on the face of the record.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and require no elaborate argumentation or investigation to establish; it must be so manifest and clear that no court would permit it to remain on the record.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Distinction Between Review and Appeal
A review is strictly meant to correct self-evident errors or omissions and not to change the decision of the court; grounds that amount to challenging the court's application of law or exercise of discretion are grounds for appeal, not review.
Civil Procedure — Functus Officio — Effect on Review Applications
Once a court issues a decree or order it is rendered functus officio; review is an exception to this principle and is intended only to correct apparent errors, not to permit the court to sit in appeal on its own judgment.
Employment & Labour — Industrial Court — Finality of Decisions — Review Applications
Where the Industrial Court is the final court of appeal in matters arising from a labour officer's decision, an aggrieved party's only remedy is review, but such review is limited to correcting self-evident errors and does not permit re-argument of the merits.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (9)

  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • Mugisha v Equity Bank (Industrial Court Miscellaneous Application No. 70 of 2017)
  • Lubanga v Ddumba (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2011)
  • Mitwalo Magyengo v Medad (supra)
  • Maiana v Mugiria [1983] KLR 78
  • Bureau Veritas v Davlin Kamugisah (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application Nos. 54 and 64 of 2017)
  • FX Mubuuke v UEB (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Batuk K. v Surat Borough Municipality & Ors (1953) Bom 133
  • Lalwak Alex v Opio Mark (Miscellaneous Application No. 0058 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sure_Telecom_v_Brian_Azemchap_(Labour_Dispute_Miscellaneous_Application_165_of_2019)_[2020]_UGIC_61_(13_March_2020)
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.