Wakilii

Watwero Enterprises Limited v Board of Governors of Lukome Secondary School & Another (Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 87 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of High Court order dismissing appeal against Deputy Registrar's decision refusing to strike out written statement of defence
Decision
Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondents

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

Held that no error apparent on the face of the record was established. The court reviewing a Deputy Registrar's decision did not rely on the respondents' affidavit in reply and thus was not required to rule on the objection to it. An error apparent on the face of the record must be obvious and self-evident, not requiring elaborate reasoning. A challenge to process leading to an order is a matter for appeal, not review. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

The applicant contracted with the first respondent in 2012 to construct classroom blocks and other facilities for UGX 312,655,300 under a World Bank funded project. Disputes arose regarding payment. The applicant filed suit. When respondents filed their written statement of defence, they could not serve it on the applicant as its address could not be located. The Deputy Registrar ordered service in court and dismissed the applicant's application to strike out the defence. On appeal, Ajiji J upheld the Deputy Registrar's decision, noting that the applicant had replied to the defence and filed a scheduling memorandum, and that the conduct was unbecoming. The applicant then sought review of Ajiji J's order, alleging the court failed to rule on an objection to the respondents' affidavit in reply.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a ground for review of the order of the High Court dated 20 October 2022.
  2. Whether an error apparent on the face of the record was made when the court failed to rule on an objection regarding non-service of the respondents' affidavit in reply.

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of High Court Orders — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error apparent on the face of the record must be obvious and self-evident, not requiring any long-drawn process of reasoning. It must not be an error which has to be searched for. If the court applies its mind to particular facts or law and reaches a conclusion after conscious reasoning, even if the conclusion was wrong, the error is not one apparent on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Review Jurisdiction — High Court Powers — Registrar's Orders
Only the High Court enjoys review powers under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules. A Judge may review the order of a Registrar. The Registrar does not have powers to review its own orders as this power is exclusively reposed in the Judge.
Civil Procedure — Review — Person Aggrieved — Legal Grievance Requirement
For the purposes of section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a person aggrieved means a person who has suffered a legal grievance, against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongly deprived him of something or wrongly affected his title. A person disappointed by a benefit which he might have received if a different order had been made is not a person aggrieved.
Civil Procedure — Review vs Appeal — Distinction — Court Sitting in Appeal Against Itself
An application for review should not be a disguised appeal. A challenge to the process leading to an order is a matter for appeal, not review. The power of review must be exercised with great circumspection lest the court ends up sitting in appeal against itself.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (7)

  • John Imaniraguha v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 2770 of 2023)
  • Kimita & another v Wakibiru [1967-1985] 1 EA 229
  • Attorney General and Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga and James Kemala (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Re Nakivubo Chemist (1979) HCB 12
  • Ex Parte Side Bothan (1880) 14 Ch D 458
  • Mohammad Alibhai v W.E Bukenya Mukasa & Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo & Co. Advocates v Kago [2001] 2 EA 173

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Watwero Enterprises Limited v Board of Governors of Lukome Secondary School & Another (Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 87 (19 March 2
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.