When a judgment is entered by court, there are different avenues a party aggrieved by the judgment may take to have a chance of the judgment being entered in a different way.
There’s a general rule that the court after passing judgment becomes functus officio and cannot revisit the judgment or purport to exercise a judicial power over the same matter. The slip rule is an exception to this under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act that, “Clerical or mathematical mistakes in judgments, decrees o orders, or errors arising in them from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties”
Where it’s not a clerical or mathematical error then a party may have to appeal the judgment to a higher court, in case the law provides for an appeal. However were there’s no appeal, an application for review of a judgment is an exception to the slip rule.
Just like with a right to appeal, the right to review too cannot be inferred but must be provided for by a statute.
The right to review as of Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act arises where a party is aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed but from which it has not been preferred or by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed.
Who then can be regarded as an aggrieved person? In Mohamed Allibhai V W.E Bukenya Mukasa & Departed Asians Property Custodian Board Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996, Odoki CJ (As was then) explained that a person considers himself aggrieved if he has suffered a legal grievance. And that such a person who is aggrieved may be a party to a suit or any third party may apply for review but such third party must establish that he is an aggrieved person.
Before a judgment is reviewed, there must be grounds for the same. It’s not automatic that where there is no right to appeal then the relevant remedy is review. There must be clear grounds for review before one can lodge an application. (F.X. Mubuke v Uganda Electricity Board High Court Misc. Application No.98 of 2005)
The grounds are herein provided under Order 46 rule 1(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules;
- Where there is discovery of new and important matters of evidence previously overlooked by excusable misfortune. This means that this evidence was discovered after exercise of due diligence and it was not within the aggrieved party’s knowledge or could not be produced by him or her at the time when the decree was passed or even the decree made.
- Where there is some mistake or error on the face of record. In Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze, Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 0f 2004, it was held that, “In order that an error may be a ground for review, it must be one apparent on the face of the record, i.e. an evident error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. It must be an error so manifest and clear that no Court would permit such an error to remain on record. The error may be one of fact but it is not limited to matters of a fact and includes also error of law.” Bashaija J in Al-Shafi Investment Group LLC v Ahmed Darwish & Anor (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 901 OF 2017) also explained that; ‘the expression “mistake or error apparent on the face of record” refers to an evident error which does not require extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. It is an error so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on the record. It may be an error of law, but law must be definite and capable of ascertainment.’
- Where there is any sufficient reason. Court in Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd[1979] HCB 12 noted that the expression “sufficient” should be read as meaning sufficiently of a kind analogous to the above two grounds. In Baguma v Kadoma [1979] HCB 340 court held that withdrawal of counsel is not a ground for review.
It’s should be noted that the High Court has no power to review its own judgment given on appeal under any special jurisdiction. (Erimiya Serunkuuma v Elizabeth Nandyose [1959] EA 127)
Disclaimer
No information contained in this writing or article should be construed as legal advice from Legal Notch Uganda or the individual authors, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter.
For additional information in relation to this article, please contact the author.
Joel Peter Namugera
THE LEGAL NOTCH 