Wakilii

Tweyambe v Kampala Capital City Authority (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 21 of 2022)

Industrial Court · [2022] UGIC 54 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of Industrial Court judgment arising from Labour Dispute Reference No. 146 of 2016
Decision
Application for review dismissed; applicant's remedy is to appeal the original judgment

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 the application for review. The court held that review is strictly meant to correct self-evident errors or omissions, not to reverse a decision or compel production of evidence that should have been adduced at trial. The applicant failed to demonstrate discovery of new evidence or an error apparent on the record. The court had expressly considered the absence of salary structures in its original judgment. Once a court renders its decision it is functus officio, and the proper remedy is appeal, not review.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; applicant's remedy is to appeal the original judgment

Facts

The applicant sought review of the Industrial Court's judgment in Labour Dispute Reference No. 146 of 2016, which had denied his claim for salary arrears and underpayment. The original judgment found that the applicant had not furnished the court with copies of the respondent's salary structure to enable determination of whether he was underpaid. In the review application, the applicant argued that the salary structures were in the respondent's control and he could not access them, and alternatively sought an order compelling the respondent to produce them. The respondent opposed, arguing that salary scales are public documents available from the Ministry of Public Service, that the applicant failed to exercise due diligence to obtain them during the original hearing, and that the application sought both discovery and review simultaneously, making it incompetent.

Issues

  1. Whether the Industrial Court should review its judgment in Labour Dispute Reference No. 146 of 2016 on grounds of underpayment of salary and salary arrears.
  2. Whether the applicant satisfied the statutory requirements for review under section 17 of the LADASA Act 2006 and Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Grounds for Review — Discovery of New Evidence
For a court to review its decree or order, the applicant must prove discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge at the time the judgment was entered, or that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Functus Officio — Distinction Between Review and Appeal
A review of a judgment is strictly meant to correct self-evident errors or omissions on the part of the court. Once a court issues a decree or order, it is rendered functus officio. Review is an exception intended to correct apparent errors, not to change the decision of the court. A court cannot sit in appeal on its own judgment.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Failure to Adduce Evidence at Trial — Not a Ground for Review
An order for review arises only if a mistake was occasioned by the court's failure to consider evidence that had been adduced, or if the applicant proves that at the commencement of the hearing he had exercised due diligence to obtain evidence from the respondent and failed, and only discovered it later. A review application cannot be used to compel production of evidence in a matter that is already concluded.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (1)

  • 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.

Tweyambe_v_Kampala_Capital_City_Authority_(Labour_Dispute_Miscellaneous_Application_21_of_2022)_[2022]_UGIC_54_(19_August_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.