Wakilii

Amama Mbabazi v Musinguzi Garuga James (Civil Application No. 19 of 2002)

Court of Appeal · [2003] UGCA 42 · 2003 Application Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to recall and correct a judgment under the slip rule
Decision
Application partly allowed: minor slips corrected; application to set aside judgment dismissed with costs

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 · applied in 2 Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

On an application to recall and correct its election petition appeal judgment under the slip rule (rule 1(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules), the Court held that the slip rule permits correction only of accidental slips or omissions that fail to give effect to the court's manifest intention, not re-evaluation of evidence or correction of deliberate legal decisions. The Court refused to alter its deliberate application of the qualitative test or its evidential findings, and declined to disturb its costs order, which was a deliberate exercise of discretion. It expunged per incuriam remarks on voters' turn-up and corrected an inaccurate summary of counsel's concession. The application to set aside the judgment was otherwise dismissed with costs.

Facts

The applicant and respondent contested the Kinkizi West Constituency parliamentary seat in the June 2001 general elections. The applicant was declared winner. The respondent successfully petitioned the High Court, which nullified the election. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal on seven grounds and succeeded only in part, on grounds 4 and 7, but was ordered to pay the respondent's costs in both courts. By judgment dated 17 December 2002 in Election Petition Appeal No. 12 of 2002, the Court applied a qualitative test, distinguishing the Supreme Court's Besigye decision. The applicant brought this application under rules 1(3), 35 and 42 of the Court of Appeal Rules, asking the Court to recall its judgment and correct alleged errors, including its application of the qualitative test, remarks on voters' turn-up, an attributed concession by counsel, certain evidential findings, and the costs order. The application was supported by affidavits of the applicant and his counsel Mr. Wandera Ogalo.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court could recall its judgment under the slip rule to correct its application of the qualitative test in deciding the election petition appeal.
  2. Whether the Court could re-evaluate evidence and alter its earlier findings under the slip rule.
  3. Whether remarks made per incuriam regarding voters' turn-up should be expunged.
  4. Whether a statement attributing a concession to counsel should be corrected.
  5. Whether the order for costs against the applicant should be corrected to reflect his partial success.

Orders

  • Remarks on the poll-watchers' report regarding voters' turn-up expunged from the judgment as a slip.
  • Statement at page 47 lines 4 to 7 attributing concession to Mr. Wandera Ogalo deleted and substituted with a corrected summary.
  • Application to re-evaluate evidence and alter findings refused.
  • Application to correct the order for costs refused.
  • Application to set aside the judgment dismissed with costs assessed at 4/5.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Scope of Power to Recall and Correct Judgments
A court may recall and correct its own judgment under the slip rule only to give effect to its manifest intention, or to what would clearly have been its intention had a matter not been inadvertently omitted; it will not sit on appeal against its own judgment in the same proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Deliberate Decisions Not Correctable
A deliberate decision of the court, such as the application of a particular legal test made after full argument, is not an accidental slip and cannot be corrected under the inherent jurisdiction or slip rule; a mistake arising from lack of understanding of a legal principle is likewise not a ground for correction.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Re-evaluation of Evidence
The slip rule does not empower a court to re-evaluate evidence a second time and change its findings, as doing so would amount to sitting on appeal against its own judgment.
Civil Procedure — Per Incuriam Remarks — Expunging Unnecessary Statements
Remarks made per incuriam on a matter neither pleaded nor argued, which are unnecessary for the sustenance of the judgment, may be expunged under the slip rule as not reflecting the intention of the court.
Costs — Judicial Discretion — Costs Following the Event
Under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act costs are a matter of judicial discretion and follow the event; a costs order made deliberately against an unsuccessful party is not an accidental slip, and a prior exercise of discretion does not bind the court's subsequent discretion.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Court of Appeal Rules (Directions) 1996 r.1(3)
  • Court of Appeal Rules (Directions) 1996 r.35
  • Court of Appeal Rules (Directions) 1996 r.42
  • Supreme Court Rules r.1(3)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.34
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap 65) s.27
  • Parliamentary Elections Act 2001 s.22(1)

Cases cited (7)

  • Non-Performing Asset Recovery Trust v General Parts (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 8 of 2001)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Oil Seed (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 15 of 1997)
  • Roko Construction Company v Uganda Cooperative Transport Union (Civil Application No. 32 of 1997)
  • Salim Jamal v Uganda Oxygen Ltd (Civil Application No. 13 of 1997)
  • Adam Vassiliadis v Libyan Arab (U) Bank for Foreign Trade and Development Ltd (Civil Application No. 28 of 1992)
  • Raniga case (1965) EA at p. 703
  • Besigye's case
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.