Mugenyi and Another v Nasser (Civil Application 1150 of 2023; Civil Application 526 of 2023)
The full judgment
Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.
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
The court, on the application of counsel for the respondents, corrected a clerical error in its ruling delivered on 18 September 2024 where the name of one of the respondent's advocates had been recorded incorrectly. Invoking Rule 36(1) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, which permits correction at any time of a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, the court ordered that the advocate's name be corrected to give effect to its intention when the ruling was given.
Facts
By letter dated 15 October 2024 addressed to the Registrar, counsel for the respondents drew the court's attention to an error in the name of one of the advocates who represented the respondent, recorded at page 3 of the court's ruling. The name had been written incorrectly. The error was noticed after delivery of the ruling on 18 September 2024. Counsel prayed that the error be corrected.
Issues
- Whether a clerical error in the name of an advocate recorded in the court's ruling could be corrected under Rule 36(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Orders
- The error at page 3 of the ruling, where the name of one of the advocates for the respondent was recorded incorrectly, is corrected to read the advocate's correct name.
Key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.36(1)