[2005] UGHCCD 28

[2005] UGHCCD 28

The court held that the issue of interest was fully canvassed and decided upon in the original suit, with the parties presenting their arguments and the court making a determination. The applicant's contention that the award of interest from the date of judgment was an error does not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. The alleged error, if any, relates to the application of the law, which is a ground for appeal, not review. The statutory requirements for review were not met, as there was no manifest error or discovery of new evidence. Therefore, the application for review was dismissed as lacking merit.

Citation
[2005] UGHCCD 28
Parties
Applicant: F. X. Mubuuke; Respondent: Uganda Electricity Board
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
20 May 2005
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 98 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
Kasule, J
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Interest on Special Damages, Error on Face of Record, Employment Contract Termination
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Employment and Labour Review of Judgment Interest on Special Damages Error on Face of Record Employment Contract Termination

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F. X. Mubuuke

Applicant

Uganda Electricity Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can review its judgment to alter the date from which interest on special damages runs.
  2. 2 Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the award of interest.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a review or should pursue an appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the issue of interest was fully canvassed and decided upon in the original suit, with the parties presenting their arguments and the court making a determination. The applicant's contention that the award of interest from the date of judgment was an error does not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. The alleged error, if any, relates to the application of the law, which is a ground for appeal, not review. The statutory requirements for review were not met, as there was no manifest error or discovery of new evidence. Therefore, the application for review was dismissed as lacking merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

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