[2016] UGIC 17

[2016] UGIC 17

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record, as the alleged errors required argument and were not self-evident. The court also held that the applicant did not present any new and important evidence that was not previously available at the time of the original...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] UGIC 17
Parties
Applicant: Emma Obokullo; Respondent: Walter Arnold
Court
Industrial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 73 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Error on Face of Record, Employment Relationship, New Evidence, Functus Officio
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Judicial Review Error on Face of Record Employment Relationship New Evidence Functus Officio

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emma Obokullo

Applicant

Walter Arnold

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review

  1. 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the original decision of the court.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant presented new and important evidence not previously available.
  3. 3 Whether the court is functus officio and thus unable to revisit its earlier decision.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record, as the alleged errors required argument and were not self-evident. The court also held that the applicant did not present any new and important evidence that was not previously available at the time of the original proceedings. The court emphasized that the submissions made by the applicant were more appropriate for an appeal rather than a review, but appeals from the Industrial Court to the Court of Appeal are limited to matters of law, not fact. As such, the court concluded that it was functus officio and could not revisit its earlier decision. The application for review was dismissed...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.