[2015] UGHCCD 100

[2015] UGHCCD 100

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any new and important matter or evidence, mistake, or error apparent on the face of the record, nor any other sufficient reason to warrant review under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant had previously been represented and had the opportunity to raise the issue of being deceived by a conman but instead presented a different set of facts in the earlier application. The attempt to rely on Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution was rejected, as it does not override the substantive requirements of procedural rules. The court held that the application amounted to an abuse of process and that the applicant did not come to...

Citation
[2015] UGHCCD 100
Parties
Applicant: Obai Joseph; Respondent: Ariong Barnabas
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
28 July 2015
Case Number
HCT-04-CV-MA-314-2014
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Sufficient Reason for Review, Abuse of Process, Application of Article 126, Clean Hands Doctrine
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Review of Court Orders Sufficient Reason for Review Abuse of Process Application of Article 126 Clean Hands Doctrine

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Obai Joseph

Applicant

Ariong Barnabas

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient reason to warrant review and setting aside of the orders made on 11/9/2014 in Miscellaneous Application No.0231/2013.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's failure to prosecute was due to circumstances beyond his control, such as being deceived by a conman.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to rely on Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to circumvent procedural requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any new and important matter or evidence, mistake, or error apparent on the face of the record, nor any other sufficient reason to warrant review under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant had previously been represented and had the opportunity to raise the issue of being deceived by a conman but instead presented a different set of facts in the earlier application. The attempt to rely on Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution was rejected, as it does not override the substantive requirements of procedural rules. The court held that the application amounted to an abuse of process and that the applicant did not come to...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review and setting aside of the orders made on 11/9/2014 in Miscellaneous Application No.0231/2013 is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded to the respondent.