Attorney General v Charles Obola & Others (Misc.App.No. 13 of 2001) [2001] UGHC 91 (21 May 2001)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f201\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f202\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f204\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f205\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f206\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f207\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f208\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f209\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{ \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa100\sbauto1\saauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid6954436 Normal (Web);}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid-94074174\listhybrid{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid1202214562 \'03(\'00);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080\lin1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698713\'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;} \fi-360\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440\lin1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698715\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li2160\jclisttab\tx2160\lin2160 } {\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698703\'02\'03.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li2880\jclisttab\tx2880\lin2880 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0 \leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698713\'02\'04.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li3600\jclisttab\tx3600\lin3600 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698715\'02\'05.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li4320\jclisttab\tx4320\lin4320 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \leveltemplateid67698703\'02\'06.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li5040\jclisttab\tx5040\lin5040 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698713 \'02\'07.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li5760\jclisttab\tx5760\lin5760 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698715\'02\'08.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li6480 \jclisttab\tx6480\lin6480 }{\listname ;}\listid1983802311}}{\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid1983802311\listoverridecount0\ls1}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1140041\rsid3819512\rsid6445624\rsid6752954\rsid6954436\rsid7361260\rsid7998192\rsid8744337 \rsid16538988\rsid16657699}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA }{\author DELL}{\operator DELL}{\creatim\yr2009\mo11\dy10\hr16\min28}{\revtim\yr2009\mo11\dy10\hr17\min45}{\version4}{\edmins56}{\nofpages6} {\nofwords1628}{\nofchars9285}{\nofcharsws10892}{\vern24689}}\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot6954436\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}} {\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (} {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16657699 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA}{ \b\insrsid16657699\charrsid8744337 \par }{\b\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 IN THE H}{\b\insrsid16657699\charrsid8744337 IGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA \par }{\b\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION }{\b\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 NO.13 OF 200}{\b\insrsid16657699\charrsid8744337 1 \par }{\b\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 (Arising out of HCCS 1289 of }{\b\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 1998)}{\b\insrsid16657699\charrsid8744337 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16657699 {\b\insrsid16657699\charrsid8744337 ATTORNEY GENERAL\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85 . APPLICANT}{\insrsid16657699\charrsid8744337 \par }\pard \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16657699 {\b\insrsid16657699\charrsid8744337 Versus \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16657699 {\b\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 CHARLES ABOLA & OTHERS}{\b\insrsid16657699\charrsid8744337 \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85 \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85}{\b\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 RESPONDENTS }{\b\insrsid16657699\charrsid8744337 \par }{\b\ul\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 BEFORE: THE }{\b\ul\insrsid16657699\charrsid8744337 HON. MR. JUSTICE E. S. LUGAYIZI \par }\pard \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16657699 {\b\ul\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 RULING}{\b\insrsid16657699\charrsid8744337 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16657699 {\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 This ruling is in respect of an application to review a consent judgment dated }{ \insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 10th January 2000. The app lication was brought by way of Notice of Motion under sections 83 and 101 of the CPA and Order 42 rules 1 and 8 of the CPR and sections 16 and 35 of the Judicature Statute. It is accompanied by an affidavit that was sworn by Mr. Byamugisha Kamugisha. The backgroun}{\insrsid7998192\charrsid8744337 d to it is briefly as follows. \par }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 The respondents are former civil servants. They filed HCCS No.1289 of 98 against the Government on their behalf}{\insrsid7998192\charrsid8744337 and on behalf of their colleagu}{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 es whose number was over six thousand in all, on account of }{\insrsid7998192\charrsid8744337 breach of terms and conditions}{\insrsid7361260\charrsid8744337 of employment}{\insrsid7998192\charrsid8744337 . They claimed that the}{ \insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 Government h ad initially promised to pay them pension on the understanding that they would accept being retrenched. However, when they accepted to be retrenched the Government reneged on its promise to pay. They therefore filed the above suit against the Governmen t and sought a declaration that they were entitled to pension on retrenchment and general damages for breach of terms and conditions of employment. In his WSD the applicant denied the above claim. However, on the strength of certain admissions Court enter ed judgment against him and held him liable to the respondents. }{\insrsid7361260\charrsid8744337 Following the event }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 on 10th January, 2000 the applicant and the respondents entered into a consent judgment in which th e applicant undertook to pay the respondents a sum of Shs.7,356,283,107/= as pension. On 31st March, 2000 a consent order was recorded between the respondents\rquote advocates and the respondents in which the latter undertook to pay the former 15% of their pension money as remuneration. Subsequently, (on the respondents\rquote application) Court made an Order directing the applicant to pay the advocates\rquote costs (i.e. 15% of Shs.7,356,283,107) directly to them. Time passed, but the applicant did not pay the respondents\rquote pension or the advocates\rquote costs. Instead, he chose to seek a review of the consent judgment dated 10th January}{ \insrsid7361260\charrsid8744337 2000. Hence this application. \par }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 As the time of hearing the application, Mr. Matsiko (a Senior State Attorney) represented the applicant; and Mr. N sibambi Kimanje represented the respondents. In essence, Mr. Matsiko submitted that the applicant seeks a review of the consent judgment because he was not aware at the time of enterin}{\insrsid7361260\charrsid8744337 g it that the sum of Shs. 7,356,283,107/= initially projected by the Minister of }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 Service as pension payable to the respon dents was merely a tentative figure. However, he only came to know the truth later when the Permanent Secretary to the said Ministry advised him of the details of the persons who were entitled to be paid pension and how much they were entitled to. From those details it became clear that 1507 respondents (out of 6339) were not entitled to pension. }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 Consequently,}{\i\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 the true amount that the respondents were entitled to as pension was Shs. 4,869,096,384/= and not Shs.7,356,283,107}{\insrsid7361260\charrsid8744337 /=}{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 . Mr. Matsiko concluded that i f a review affecting the above figures is not }{\insrsid7361260\charrsid8744337 granted, the Government will lose twice. Firstly}{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 , instead of paying the sum of Shs.4,869,096,384/= as pension to the respondents, the applicant will pay a hefty sum of Shs.7,356,283,107/=. Equally so, the advocates\rquote costs (i.e. 15% of the pension payable to the respondents\rquote advocates) will be based on the hefty figure above and not the small one. For those reasons Mr. Matsiko urged Court to review the consent judgment in order to save the Government from losing money. \line Mr. Nsibambi Kimanje opposed the application for two reasons. Firstly, he submitted that it did not fall within the purview of section 83 of the CPA. This is so because (in his view) the applicant failed to prove that at the time the consent judgment was reco rded there was fraud or collusion or that the arrangement was against the policy of Court. He relied on the case of }{\b\ul\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 Brooke Bond Liebig(T) Ltd v Mallya [1975] EA 266 at page }{\ul\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 269 }{ \insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 for that. position. Secondly, Mr. Nsibambi submitted that Mr. Byamugisha Kamugisha\rquote s affidavit which the applicant relied upon as evidence to support}{\insrsid7361260\charrsid8744337 the application was defectiv e in that it offended Order 17 Rule 3 }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 of the CPR. It was based on the information he obtained from the officials of the Ministry of Public Service, but no ground4. for believing that information was disclosed. For t hose reasons Mr. Nsibambi Kimanje called upon Court to dismiss the application with }{\insrsid7361260\charrsid8744337 costs. \par }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 In Court\rquote s view this application raises two main issues, that is to say, \line 1. }{\insrsid7361260\charrsid8744337 Whether it is fundamentally defective and should be dismissed? \par }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 2. Whether it falls within the purview of section 83 of the CPA and Order 42 rules 1 and 8 of }{\insrsid7361260\charrsid8744337 the CPR and should be granted? \par }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 Court will deal with t}{\insrsid7361260\charrsid8744337 hose two issues in that order. \par }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 With regard to the first issue, it is important to examine Order 17 rule 3(1) of the CPR which reads as follows, }{\insrsid7361260\charrsid8744337 \par }{\i\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 \'93Affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory applications, on which statements of his belief may be admitted, provided that th}{ \i\insrsid7361260\charrsid8744337 e grounds thereof are stated\'94. \par }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 That provision lays a general rule that the contents }{\insrsid7361260\charrsid8744337 of an affidavit must consist of }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 things that a deponent personally knows and can prove from his own knowledge. However, the provision points }{\insrsid6445624\charrsid8744337 out an ex}{\insrsid7361260\charrsid8744337 ception to that rule which}{\insrsid6445624\charrsid8744337 is \'93}{ \insrsid7361260\charrsid8744337 interlocutory }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 applications\'94, in which the deponent may include things he believes, but are outs ide the realm of his personal knowledge. Indeed, information that a deponent may have received from another person and believed, would fall within that exception if the grounds for believing it are stated. In the instant case, it was not disputed that the application which is the subject of this ruling is an interlocutory application. It was also not disputed that the affidavit accompanying the application is based on information outside the personal knowledge of Mr. Byamugisha }{ \insrsid6445624\charrsid8744337 Kamugish}{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 a.}{\insrsid6445624\charrsid8744337 It was further}{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 not}{\insrsid6445624\charrsid8744337 disputed that the above affi}{ \insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 davit does not show the grounds upon which Mr. Byamugisha Kamugisha believed the said information. However, the crucial question is whether failure on Mr. Byamugisha Kamugisha\rquote s part to disclose the grounds upon which he believed that information renders the affidavit incurably bad thus making the application fundamentally defective? Court\rquote s answer to that question is negative, for the requirement of the law in Order 17 rule 3 o f the CPR is a procedural formality whose absence, in this case, did not affect the root of the affidavit. That side, the contents of the affidavit, as they are, did not prejudice the respondents in their defence. For those reasons it remains a valid affi davit despite the defect. }{\b\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 (See }{\b\ul\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 Brooke Bond Liebig (T) Ltd v Mallya (Supra) at the bottom of page }{\ul\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 268.) }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 All in all, the application which is the subject of this ruling is not fundamentally defective. The first issue is there}{\insrsid6445624\charrsid8744337 fore answered in the negative. \par }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 With regard to the second issue, section 83 of the CPA }{\insrsid6445624\charrsid8744337 provides}{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 as }{\insrsid6445624\charrsid8744337 follows; \par }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 \'93Any person considering himself aggrieved }{\insrsid6445624\charrsid8744337 \endash \par }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Act, but from which no}{\insrsid6445624\charrsid8744337 appeal has been preferred; or \par }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by }{\insrsid6445624\charrsid8744337 this Act, \par May apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.\'94 \par The phrase \'93and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit,\'94 at the end of the above provision seems to give courts a very wide discretion to review judgments passed by them. However, that discretion is limited by Order 42 Rule 1 case law. }{\b\ul\insrsid6445624\charrsid8744337 (See Brooke Bond liebig (T)}{\b\ul\insrsid16538988\charrsid8744337 Ltd .v. Mallya- supra}{\b\ul\insrsid6445624\charrsid8744337 )}{\insrsid16538988\charrsid8744337 . Therefore , in reality courts can only exercise the discretion referred to in section 83 of the CPA where an applicant has been able to prove any of the following grounds,}{\insrsid6445624\charrsid8744337 \par {\listtext\pard\plain\s15 \insrsid16538988\charrsid8744337 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (a)\tab}}\pard \s15\qj \fi-720\li1080\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar \jclisttab\tx1080\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls1\adjustright\rin0\lin1080\itap0\pararsid16538988 {\insrsid16538988\charrsid8744337 that he has discovered new and important matter of evidence that was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time of the consent judgment; \par {\listtext\pard\plain\s15 \insrsid16538988\charrsid8744337 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (b)\tab} That there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;}{\b\ul\insrsid16538988\charrsid8744337 \par {\listtext\pard\plain\s15 \insrsid16538988\charrsid8744337 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (c)\tab}}{\insrsid16538988\charrsid8744337 That there was fraud or collusion in reaching the agreement; \par {\listtext\pard\plain\s15 \insrsid16538988\charrsid8744337 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (d)\tab}That the agreement was contrary to the policy of court or public policy; or \par {\listtext\pard\plain\s15 \insrsid16538988\charrsid8744337 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (e)\tab}Some other valid reason as would afford good ground for varying or rescinding a contract between the parties. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8744337 {\insrsid16538988\charrsid8744337 Did the applicant succeed in proving any of the above grounds? The applicant\rquote s case was founded on grounds (a) and (b) above, that is to say, that he had}{\insrsid8744337\charrsid8744337 }{\insrsid16538988\charrsid8744337 discovered new and important matter of evidence that was not within his knowledge at the time of the consent judgment. Alternatively, that there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. He endeavoured to justify the existence of the two alternative grounds above by pointing out that at the time the consent judgment was recorded, he did not know that 1507 respondents out of 6339 had no valid pension claim. He discovered}{\insrsid6752954\charrsid8744337 the truth later after the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Public Service communicated to him}{\insrsid16538988\charrsid8744337 }{\insrsid6752954\charrsid8744337 that fact in her letter dated 28}{\super\insrsid6752954\charrsid8744337 th}{ \insrsid6752954\charrsid8744337 December 2000. the applicant concluded that the above means that the respondents with a valid pension claim were only entitled to a sum of Shs.4,869,096,384/= and not Shs.7,356,283,107/= as pension. Hence , the need to correct the above figures in the consent judgment so that the true state of things may be reflected.}{\insrsid16538988\charrsid8744337 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16657699 {\insrsid6752954\charrsid8744337 From the foregoing, it is quite clear that the heart of the applicant\rquote s case is that 1507 respondents out of 6339 were paid pension before the consent judgment was recorded and therefore those respondents had no valid claim under the consent judgment. The law is that the person who alleges certain facts must prove their existence if he is to }{\insrsid3819512\charrsid8744337 succeed }{\b\ul\insrsid3819512\charrsid8744337 (see sections 100 and 101 of the Evidence Act Cap. 43). }{\insrsid3819512\charrsid8744337 The}{\insrsid8744337\charrsid8744337 question therefore is whether the applicant proved what he alleged above? In court\rquote s opinion he did not. The letter from the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Public service dated 28}{\super\insrsid8744337\charrsid8744337 th}{ \insrsid8744337\charrsid8744337 December 2000 which the applicant relied}{\b\insrsid8744337\charrsid8744337 }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 upon as proof of payment }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 was }{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 in reality not proof of payment, but merely the source of the allegation that payment was made to the said respondents. This is particularly so, since under Charles Abola\rquote s unchallenged aff idavit the respondents denied that they received pension at any time. In the}{\insrsid8744337\charrsid8744337 circumstances, Court has no choice but to hold that the applicant failed to prove that}{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 the application which is the subject of this ruling falls within the purview of section 83 of the CPA and Order 42 rules 1 and 8 of the CPR. In the result, the applica}{\insrsid8744337\charrsid8744337 tion}{\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 must fail and it is hereby dismissed with costs. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li5040\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5040\itap0\pararsid8744337 {\b\insrsid8744337\charrsid8744337 E. S LUGAYIZI \par JUDGE \par 21/5/2001}{\b\ul\insrsid8744337\charrsid8744337 \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16657699 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6954436\charrsid8744337 \par }}