[2012] UGHC 236

[2012] UGHC 236

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record in the Consent Order. The evidence showed that the citation of Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2005 was the result of deliberate negotiations between the parties, not a clerical or accidental mistake. The controversy between the parties regarding the intended formula for gratuity payments was not a clear or obvious error suitable for review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act or Order 46 Rule 1(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court emphasized that review is only available for errors that are obvious and easily detectable, not for issues that require extensive inquiry or arise after...

Citation
[2012] UGHC 236
Parties
Applicant: Bagamuhunda Vicent; Applicant: John Katongole; Applicant: Edward Rogers Kiwanuka; Respondent: Uganda Electricity Board (in liquidation)
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
14 November 2012
Case Number
Misc Application No. 262 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Consent Order
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
Mwangushya, J
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Consent Orders, Error Apparent on Face of Record
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Review of Court Orders Consent Orders Error Apparent on Face of Record

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bagamuhunda Vicent

Applicant

John Katongole

Applicant

Edward Rogers Kiwanuka

Applicant

Uganda Electricity Board (in liquidation)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Consent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the Consent Order in Misc Application No. 63 of 2007 justifying review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rule 1(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the omission of the 1.5% interest factor in the calculation of gratuity payments constituted a mistake warranting review of the Consent Order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record in the Consent Order. The evidence showed that the citation of Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2005 was the result of deliberate negotiations between the parties, not a clerical or accidental mistake. The controversy between the parties regarding the intended formula for gratuity payments was not a clear or obvious error suitable for review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act or Order 46 Rule 1(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court emphasized that review is only available for errors that are obvious and easily detectable, not for issues that require extensive inquiry or arise after...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded to the respondent.