Wakilii

Tsama William and Others v Attorney General and Others [2026] UGHC 768

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the High Court for review and setting aside of its own earlier ruling dismissing a human rights enforcement cause
Decision
Application for review dismissed; the applicants left to pursue an appeal to the Court of Appeal

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 High Court dismissed an application to review its earlier ruling which had struck out an expert affidavit for want of certified public documents and dismissed a wetlands-related human rights cause. The Court held that review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 1 is confined to errors that are self-evident on a mere perusal of the record; misconstruing a statute, resolving a contested legal question, or failing to engage with section 6 of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 are grounds of appeal, not review. Where the relationship between the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act and the Evidence Act certification rules remains unsettled, two opinions are reasonably possible and no patent error arises. Each party bore its own costs.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; the applicants left to pursue an appeal to the Court of Appeal

Facts

The applicants, 48 residents of Bududa District, instituted Miscellaneous Cause No. 024 of 2020 against the Attorney General, NEMA and Bududa Local Government, alleging that the respondents facilitated or permitted unlawful destruction of wetlands in Bududa, infringing rights under Articles 20, 21, 22, 39 and 45 of the Constitution. They sought declarations, a permanent injunction and general damages. They filed 48 individual affidavits and the affidavit of an expert, Vincent Yiga, annexing maps, National Development Plan documents and government reports. The respondents objected that the annexed public documents were not certified as required by the Evidence Act. Justice Godfrey Namundi sustained the objection, struck out the expert affidavit and its annexures, and dismissed the entire cause on 15 August 2024. The applicants applied for review, contending that the striking out was erroneous, that dismissal of the whole cause without evaluating the surviving 48 affidavits was disproportionate, and that the court failed to apply the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019, which bars dismissal of human rights suits for procedural technicalities. Justice Namundi had since retired. NEMA raised a preliminary objection that the applicants' affidavits breached the Illiterates Protection Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was properly before the Court in light of the preliminary objection that the supporting affidavits were defective for non-compliance with the Illiterates Protection Act.
  2. Whether a judge other than the judge who made the impugned order has jurisdiction to hear a review application premised on error apparent on the face of the record.
  3. Whether the striking out of an expert affidavit for want of certification of annexed public documents amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record.
  4. Whether the dismissal of the whole cause after striking out the expert affidavit, without evaluating the remaining 48 affidavits, was an error apparent on the face of the record.
  5. Whether the earlier court's failure to apply section 6 of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 was an error apparent on the face of the record.
  6. What orders should follow, including as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record — Standard
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and strike a person on a mere perusal of the record without any elaborate process of reasoning; where a point of law admits of two reasonably possible opinions, or the error can only be established by a long drawn process of reasoning, no ground for review is made out.
Civil Procedure — Review — Distinction from Appeal — Review Not an Appeal in Disguise
A court exercising review jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal over its own decision by re-evaluating the evidence and reaching a different conclusion; misconstruing a statute or reaching an erroneous conclusion of law after conscious consideration of the applicable provisions is a ground of appeal and not of review.
Civil Procedure — Review — Which Judge May Hear the Application — Order 46 Rule 2
Where a review application is premised on an error apparent on the face of the record or the discovery of new and important evidence, it may be heard by a judge other than the judge who passed the decree or made the order, particularly where that judge has left the bench.
Human Rights — Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 s.6 — Procedural Technicalities and Evidence Act Certification Requirements
Whether the prohibition in section 6 of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act 2019 against dismissing human rights suits for procedural technicalities displaces the certification requirements of the Evidence Act is an unsettled question of Ugandan law on which two opinions are reasonably possible, and a failure to engage with section 6 therefore does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Court's Discretion to Decline Determination Where Objection Becomes Academic
Where an application fails on its substantive merits, a court may, consistent with Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, decline to make a definitive ruling on a preliminary objection whose determination has become academic and would serve no useful purpose.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion to Decline Costs Against Unsuccessful Party of Limited Means
Although costs ordinarily follow the event, a court may exercise its discretion to decline an award of costs against unsuccessful applicants who are persons of limited means and who pursued the proceedings in good faith, ordering each party to bear its own costs.

Legislation cited (22)

Cases cited (3)

  • Outa Levi v Uganda Transport Corporation [1975] HCB 353
  • Kwesiga Monica v Commercial Bank of Africa (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1197 of 2021)
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates vs Kago [2001] 2 EA 173

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tsama William and Others v Attorney General and Others [2026] UGHC 768 (23 June 2026)
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.