Uganda Case Law

Sewanyana v Aliker

Sewanyana v Aliker (Civil Application 40 of 91) [1992] UGSC 9 (3 February 1992)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Application 40 of 91

Judge

Manyindo, DCJ, Oder, JSC, Platt, JSC

The Supreme Court held that while it possesses inherent jurisdiction under Rule 1(3) of the Supreme Court Rules to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice, this jurisdiction does not extend to reviewing its own completed judgments on grounds of fraud unless manifest injustice or nullity is established. The applicant failed to provide new evidence substantiating the allegation of fraud, and the documents relied upon did not alter the factual or legal findings previously made. The proper course for challenging a judgment on grounds of fraud is to institute fresh proceedings in the High Cour…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Judgment
• Inherent Jurisdiction
• Fraud In Judicial Proceedings
• Lease Allocation Disputes

Sewanyanya v Aliker

Sewanyanya v Aliker (Civil Application 4 of 1991) [1992] UGSC 25 (3 February 1992)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Application 4 of 1991

Judge

Manyindo, DCJ, Oder, JSC, Platt, JSC

The Supreme Court of Uganda dismissed an application to review its earlier judgment, holding that fraud allegations did not justify substantive review in that forum.

• Review Of Judgment
• Fraud In Judicial Proceedings
• Inherent Jurisdiction
• Lease Allocation Disputes
• Review-of-judgment
• Fraud-in-judicial-proceedings

Attorney General v Turyamureeba

Attorney General v Turyamureeba (Civil Suit 436 of 1989) [1991] UGHC 25 (16 May 1991)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 436 of 1989

Judge

Tsekooko, J

The court found that the respondent had knowledge of the earlier suit (HCCS No. 488 of 1988) and that the subject matter in both suits was essentially the same vehicle, despite attempts to distinguish them. The respondent's abandonment of the earlier suit and subsequent institution of HCCS No. 436 of 1989 against the applicant amounted to a misrepresentation of facts and constituted fraud. The court held that the doctrine of res judicata did not strictly apply due to the difference in parties, but the existence of conflicting judgments on the same subject matter necessitated judicial interven…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Judgment
• Res Judicata
• Fraud In Judicial Proceedings
• Exparte Judgment
• Public Policy