Definition of manifest error

I am a certified public accountant with an interest in law. Over the years, I have taught myself to read legal texts. While it is not easy, I am determined to pursue this knowledge. While exploring the procedures for review in the Court of Appeal, I encountered the phrase ‘manifest error’ on the face of records. What does it mean for an error to be manifest? Is this simply a play on words by lawyers to make more money? I will appreciate your clarification.
AR, Kagera

Much as you are criticising lawyers, what you are doing is commendable, and you should consider pursuing a law degree to become a lawyer!

Rule 66 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2019 (as amended), outlines the criteria for the Court of Appeal to review its decisions. This review is highly restricted and does not serve as a challenge to the merits of a decision (which is what an appeal entails). Instead, it is meant to address irregularities in decisions or proceedings that have caused injustice to a party. According to case law, the term ‘manifest error’ when filing an application for review must refer to an obvious and self-evident error on the records of the appeal, rather than one that could be established through a lengthy process of legal arguments. This is referred to as a ‘manifest error’ rather than just an error, because an error may be substantiated through legal arguments that contest the merits of a decision.

To determine whether a manifest error exists, the following tests must be met: first, the error must be clearly apparent on the face of the record without needing further explanation. Second, a Court’s decision cannot be reviewed simply because a different panel of the same Court might reach a different conclusion based on the same facts. Third, a Court’s decision is not subject to review merely because it misinterpreted a provision of law. For example, it is not sufficient grounds for review if another judge could have arrived at a different conclusion or if a statute or other legal provisions were misinterpreted. While these may be seen as errors, they could serve as valid grounds for an appeal, not a review, because they require legal arguments. So, using ‘manifest error’ in the Rules is not a play on words. It was intentionally chosen to distinguish the grounds for a review from those for an appeal.