Wakilii

Walakira v Nakalanzi (Miscellaneous Application No. 127 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 257 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of an interlocutory ruling in a civil revision matter
Decision
Application for review dismissed with costs

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 the application for review. The court held that an order directing a trial magistrate to re-write a missing judgment to enable proper determination of a revision application was a discretionary decision made for expeditious resolution of the matter, not an error apparent on the face of the record. An error apparent must be self-evident and not require elaborate reasoning to establish. Disagreement with a judicial decision does not constitute grounds for review; the proper remedy is appeal.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant was committed to civil prison for six months for contempt of court in Miscellaneous Application No. 057 of 2017 for disobeying orders in Civil Suit No. 150 of 2012. He filed Civil Revision No. 04 of 2019 on the basis that no judgment existed in the underlying civil suit. The High Court delivered a ruling ordering the trial magistrate to re-write the missing judgment before the revision could be determined. The applicant then sought review of that ruling, alleging it constituted an error apparent on the face of the record because the order to re-write judgment was alien to law and condoned illegality. The respondent opposed, stating judgment had been delivered in 2014 but went missing from the court file save for the final page containing orders and the magistrate's signature.

Issues

  1. Whether there existed an error apparent on the face of the record in the ruling ordering the trial magistrate to re-write the missing judgment in Civil Suit No. 150 of 2012.
  2. Whether the applicant was legally aggrieved by the High Court's order directing re-writing of the judgment.
  3. Whether the application for review disclosed sufficient grounds under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition and Scope
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and manifest, requiring no elaborate argument or reasoning to establish. A mere erroneous decision or a situation where two views are reasonably possible does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Review — Judicial Discretion — Challenge by Review versus Appeal
Where a court exercises judicial discretion to make an interlocutory order for proper prosecution of a matter, such a decision does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record even if another judge might have taken a different view. The proper remedy for challenging such discretionary decisions is appeal, not review.
Civil Procedure — Review — Impermissible Use — Re-litigation and Prolonging Proceedings
The remedy of review is not intended to enable a party to prolong litigation or re-litigate matters simply because they disagree with the court's decision. Review is only available on limited grounds including discovery of new evidence, mistake, or error apparent on the record, or other sufficient reason as provided under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (3)

  • Batuk K. Vyas vs Surart Borough Municipality & Ors (1953) Bom 133
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2001] 2 EA 173
  • National Bank of Kenya v Ndungu Njau (Civil Appeal No. 2111 of 1996)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Walakira v Nakalanzi (Miscellaneous Application No. 127 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 257 (17 March 2021)
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.