Description
JACQUELINE NTUYABALIWE MENGI AND OTHERS V. ABDIEL REGINALD MENGI AND OTHERS, COURT OF APPEAL, 2021
An aggrieved party, an interested party, apply for revision, invoke the Court’s power of revision, no right to appeal, demonstrate sufficient and exceptional circumstances, not parties to proceedings which gave rise to the impugned decision, orders of the Court after examining the record, attached documents form part of the “application” instead of the “affidavit” is not fatal, mere slip hence not fatal, the overriding objective principle.
- An aggrieved party may appeal against a decision of the court. However, an interested party may apply for revision of the decision of the court (p. 8).
- In order to invoke the Court’s power of revision, there must be no right to appeal and in some peculiar circumstances, a party aggrieved has to demonstrate sufficient and exceptional circumstances (pp. 8 – 9).
- The applicants were not parties to proceedings which gave rise to the impugned decision and thus the only way to challenge that decision is by way of revision (p. 9).
- A person does not become a party to a proceeding merely because he testified in the matter (p. 9).
- The applicants had applied to be joined in probate proceedings but their application was declined. It was held that those fruitless attempts did not make them parties to those proceedings hence they had a right to seek revision against the decision which resulted from the said proceedings (p. 12).
- In revision applications before the Court of Appeal, orders of the Court after examining the record do not necessarily depend or base on the prayers of the applicant (p. 18).
- An affidavit is a sworn evidence and whatever document a party intends to form part of it, has to be stated in the affidavit and attached to it, contrary to that, a document will not form part of that evidence (p. 22).
- A statement that attached documents form part of the “application” instead of the “affidavit” is not fatal since an application for revision is made by notice of motion supported by an affidavit meaning that those two things are inseparable. That statement was held to be a mere slip hence not fatal. The Court applied the overriding objective principle and treated those documents as part of supporting affidavit (p. 24).
