[2024] UGHC 1027

[2024] UGHC 1027

The court found that the alleged error was not a manifest mistake apparent on the face of the record but rather a disagreement with the trial judge's findings of fact regarding the date of execution. Determining whether execution occurred in 2001 or 2003 would require re-evaluating evidence and pleadings, which is beyond the scope of review and falls within appellate jurisdiction. The applicant's grievance relates to the correctness of the trial judge's factual determination, not a clear error on the record. Therefore, the application for review does not meet the legal threshold and is dismissed.

Citation
[2024] UGHC 1027
Parties
Applicant: David Muhenda; Respondent: Humprey Mirembe
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
30 October 2024
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 63 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
Wagona, J
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Error Apparent on Record, Limitation Periods
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Review of Judgment Error Apparent on Record Limitation Periods

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Muhenda

Applicant

Humprey Mirembe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the court record in Civil Suit No. 16 of 2014 to warrant a review.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the alleged error was not a manifest mistake apparent on the face of the record but rather a disagreement with the trial judge's findings of fact regarding the date of execution. Determining whether execution occurred in 2001 or 2003 would require re-evaluating evidence and pleadings, which is beyond the scope of review and falls within appellate jurisdiction. The applicant's grievance relates to the correctness of the trial judge's factual determination, not a clear error on the record. Therefore, the application for review does not meet the legal threshold and is dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

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