Post-judgment Remedies
Post-judgment remedies are legal remedies that are available to parties who are dissatisfied with the outcome of a legal case. These remedies allow parties to seek further consideration of their case by a higher court or other legal authority.
Post-judgment remedies operate as an exception to the principle of finality of judgments but do not in any way operate to evade the rule.
The Principle of Finality of Judgements
The principle of finality of judgments refers to the idea that once a judgment has been made by a court or other judicial body, it should be considered final and not subject to further review or appeal, except in certain limited circumstances. The principle of finality of judgments is an important aspect of the judicial process, as it helps to ensure that parties have a clear understanding of their rights and responsibilities, and can rely on the judicial decision as a final resolution of their dispute. This principle is intended to ensure the integrity and reliability of the legal system by promoting the rule of law and providing certainty and predictability in the resolution of disputes.
The Rationale for the Existence of Post-judgement Remedies
Although the principle of finality of judgments operates as a final recourse, it does not overshadow the fact that humans are prone to err. They make mistakes and this too can be manifest in the judgments made by judicial officers in deciding cases, hence the provision of post-judgment remedies.
As a result, there exist post-judgment remedies to curb the effect of such propositions.
Examples of Post-judgement Remedies
Below are the available post-judgment remedies available to parties in case they are dissatisfied with the outcome of court in relation to their case;
Appeals
Revisions
Reviews
Appeals
A party can appeal a case to a higher court if they believe that the lower court made an error in its ruling or judgment. The purpose of an appeal is to correct any errors that may have occurred in the original trial or ruling.
Revisions
A revision is a review of a case by a higher court that is based on new evidence or testimony that was not available at the time of the original trial. The purpose of a revision is to correct any errors or injustices that may have occurred as a result of the lack of this evidence or testimony.
Reviews
A review is a re-examination of a case by a higher court or legal authority, typically based on the grounds that the original decision was incorrect or unjust. Reviews can be based on legal arguments or on new evidence or testimony, and they are generally intended to correct errors or injustices that occurred during the original trial or ruling.
REVIEWS
Reviews are a type of post-judgment remedy that entails a re-examination of a case by a higher court or legal authority, typically based on the grounds that the original decision was incorrect or unjust.
Reviews can be based on legal arguments or on new evidence or testimony, and they are generally intended to correct errors or injustices that occurred during the original trial or ruling.
The rationale for the remedy of review is to ensure that justice is done in a particular case. In some cases, the original decision may be based on incomplete or incorrect information, or it may be the result of an error in the application of the law. Reviews provide a way for parties to challenge the original decision and seek a more just outcome.
In common law systems, reviews are less common than other post-judgment remedies such as appeals and are typically only available in cases where there has been a significant error or injustice. In these systems, the availability of a review is typically based on the specific laws and procedures of the jurisdiction.
One well-known example of a case decided on review in common law is the case of Marbury V Madison 5 U.S. (1803), which was a case in the United States Supreme Court. In this case, William Marbury sought a writ of mandamus (a legal remedy) from the Supreme Court to compel Secretary of State James Madison to deliver Marbury's appointment as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia.
The Supreme Court ruled against Marbury, holding that the portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that granted the Court the authority to issue writs of mandamus was unconstitutional. On perusal of the record, the Court struck down the disputed provisions of the Judiciary Act, stating that American courts have the power to invalidate laws that they find to violate the Constitution—a power now known as "judicial review" This case established the principle of judicial review, which gives the Supreme Court the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional.
In Uganda, the remedy of review is provided for under the Civil Procedure Act under Part IX in toto. Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that any persons considering themselves aggrieved by an order or decree of the court from which an appeal is or is not allowed by the court under the Act 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 on the decree or order as it thinks fit.
Under such laws, parties to a civil or criminal case can seek a review of the case by the High Court if they believe the original decision was based on an error of law or fact.
One example of a case decided on review in Uganda is the case of Tumwesigye V Uganda, which was a case before the Ugandan Court of Appeal. In this case, the appellant sought a review of a decision of the High Court on the grounds that the original decision was based on an error of law.
The Court of Appeal upheld the review, finding that the original decision was indeed based on an error of law, and it ordered that the case be reheard by the High Court.
In conclusion, the post-judgment remedy of review is an important legal remedy that allows parties to seek a re-examination of a case by a higher court or legal authority. This remedy is based on the principle that justice should be done in a particular case and is intended to correct errors or injustices that may have occurred during the original trial or ruling.
Review is a less common remedy than other post-judgment remedies, such as appeals, and is typically only available in cases where there has been a significant error or injustice.