Mubuuke v Uganda Electricity Board (Miscellaneous Application 98 of 2005) [2005] UGHCCD 28 (20 May 2005)

ROMED<br>1871 MOGHY THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA most at l

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.98 OF 2005

(ARISING OUT OF CIVIL SUIT NO.1526 OF 1999) **HIMMONIN: PLAINTIFF**

F. X. MUBUUKE

**VERSUS**

**HILL DEFENDANT/** UGANDA ELECTRICITY BOARD !!!!!!!!!!!!!! RESPONDENT

BEFORE: AG. MR. JUSTICE REMMY KASULE LAW DEVELOIMENT CENTRO RULINGREFRENCE LIBRARY

The applicant sued the Respondent in this court in Civil Suit No.1526 of 1999 for special and general damages for breach and wrongful termination of the contract of employment.

In the amended plaint dated $5^{\text{th}}$ May 2003, the applicant (plaintiff) in the suit claimed interest on the special damages at the rate of 25% from $12^{th}$ August 1998 (the date of termination of the contract till payment in full.

The Respondent (Defendant in the suit) denied the claim of the plaintiff. The suit was thus tried through a full hearing before Hon. Justice Musoke-Kibuuka and Judgement delivered in favour of the applicant (claintiff) against the Respondent (Defendant). The Court awarded various sums of money for special damages. There was also an award for general damages.<br> As to interest the Court issued "an order requiring the defendant to pay

interest on (a), (b) and (c) above, at the rate of 18% per annum, from the date of Judgement till payment in full". The amounts awarded in (a) and (b) were special damages; and that in (c) was general damages.

In this application the applicant through his Counsel, Dr. Jean Barya, contends that, the award of interest on the special damages from the date of Judgement, was an error on the face of the record in that such interest should have run from the date of termination of contract or in. the alternative from the date of the institution of the suit in accordance with section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act; and the usual Judicial practice. That at any rate the respondent had conceded in his written submissions filed in court on 23<sup>rd</sup> March, 2004, that interest on special damages be awarded with effect from the date of filing suit.

The Respondent, through learned counsel Kanyemibwa, opposes the application on the ground that there is no error on the face of the record for the court to exercise its powers of review. The remedy available to the applicant is an appeal against the order of the court on the issue of interest.

The right to a review, like the right to appeal must be expressly given by statute. Such a right cannot be merely inferred. This is so because review is an exception to the general rule that once Judgement is pronounced and signed by court it cannot afterwards be altered or added to by the very court pronouncing it. The remedy of a party who is dissatisfied with such a Judgement or any part of it is to appeal to a higher court,

-AW DEVELOPMENT LENDING

Where a party prays court for a review such a one must show that there is a discovery of new and Important evidence which was not within his/her knowledge and would therefore, not be produced by him/her, or, there was some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or any other sufficient reason: See 0.42 rules 1 (1) (b) and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act. See also SCCA 56 of 1996 (15tth August 1996) Mohammed Allibhai V, W. E. Bukenya Mukasa & Departed Asians Property Custodian Board: [1996] III KALR 92.

$\bigg) \bigg\langle \bigg\rangle_{\mathcal{G}_{\mu\nu}}$

$\left\langle \cdot \right\rangle$

A review is different from an appeal in that a review is reconsideration of the subject of the suit by the same court under specific conditions set by the law, while an appeal is a rehearing by the appellate court. A review does not open questions decided upon between the parties, except under specific instances accorded by the law while an appeal reopens all issues the subject of the appeal. A valid ground for an appeal is not necessarily a ground for review. For example a holding by court

which is wrong in law is not a ground for review, though it is a good ground for an appeal.

For a review to succeed on the basis of an error on the face of the record, the error must be so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on the record. A wrong application of the law or failure to apply the appropriate law is not an error on the face of the record: See: Chitaley and Rao: The Code of Civil Procedure 7th

(1963) Edition, page 4470.<br> IAW DEVELOGMENT CENTER<br> REFRENCE LINRAPY<br> In Civil Suit No.1526 of 1999 the parties canvassed and addressed the issue of interest in their pleadings and submissions. Everything was laid before the court; and the court made a decision on the issue of interest. It awarded a rate of interest and fixed a date as to when the interest was to run. It is immaterial for purposes of this application that in doing so the court might have acted contrary to the law. If it so acted, the remedy is an appeal but not a review.

The court therefore finds and holds that this is not a proper and fit case for review. The application has no merit. The same is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

$C$

Rěmmy Kasulé A. G JUDGE 20th May 200