Wakilii

Fang Min v Guangzhou Dongsong Energy Group Co. Ltd and Others (Civil Application No. 28 of 2023)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 370 · 2025 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under the slip rule to correct clerical and accidental errors in the Court of Appeal's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 0170 of 2020
Decision
Application granted; the errors in the Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 0170 of 2020 corrected under the slip rule

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) 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 under the slip rule (rule 36(1) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions), the Court of Appeal corrected clerical and accidental errors in its earlier judgment in Civil Appeal No. 0170 of 2020. It substituted 'Shs 5,000,000' with 'USD 5,000,000', harmonised the conflicting interest provisions to 10% per annum from the date of the lower court's judgment, expunged the order charging interest on the frozen USD 8,000,000 (which had already been paid), and corrected several typographical errors. The Court reaffirmed that under the slip rule it does not sit on appeal from its own decision and acts only to give effect to its original intention when judgment was given.

Facts

The applicant had filed a derivative suit (H.C.C.S No. 318 of 2016) over the unlawful transfer of the Sukulu Project mineral exploration licence from Uganda Hui Neng Mining Limited (UHNML) to the respondents. The High Court found for the applicant, valued her 35 UHNML shares at USD 25,000,000, and held she was entitled to a frozen USD 8,000,000. On appeal in Civil Appeal No. 0170 of 2020, decided 27 December 2022, the Court of Appeal set aside the USD 25,000,000 award and instead awarded USD 5,000,000 as compensation for her unpaid share capital contribution and loss of potential dividends, upholding the order on the frozen USD 8,000,000. The applicant then brought this slip rule application contending that the judgment contained errors: the USD 5,000,000 award was mistakenly recorded in shillings; the interest rate and its commencement date were stated inconsistently (10% from the lower court's judgment versus 8% from filing of the suit); and an order charging interest on the already-paid frozen sum should be expunged, alongside several typographical corrections.

Issues

  1. Whether the slip rule under rule 36(1) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions could be invoked to correct the stated amount and the conflicting interest provisions in the Court's earlier judgment.
  2. Whether the order awarding interest at 8% on the frozen USD 8,000,000 should be expunged because that sum had already been paid.
  3. Whether the conflicting interest rate and commencement date in the earlier judgment should be harmonised into a single position.

Orders

  • The sum stated in shillings as '5,000,000/=' on page 41 under Order (b) is a clerical error and is substituted with the correct sum of 'USD 5,000,000 (United States Dollars Five Million)'.
  • The amount in (A), forming part of the USD 8,000,000 frozen in the Respondent/Applicant's bank account in China, shall be paid directly to the Respondent and shall attract interest at 10% per annum from the date of the judgment of the trial court.
  • The order on page 41 under Order e(ii) charging interest at 8% per annum on the frozen sum is expunged from the Judgment under the slip rule, as the USD 8,000,000 subject of that order had already been paid.
  • Page 6, Paragraph 3, line 10 is corrected to read '...the second appellant agreed and transferred 15 shares'.
  • Page 25, Paragraph 4, line 1 is corrected to read 'The Respondent further claimed that the fraudulent acts of the Defendants...'.
  • Page 5 under representation is corrected to the correct spelling 'Mr. Francis Tumwesige'.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs of this application.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Scope of the Court's Power to Correct Its Own Judgment
Under rule 36(1) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, the Court may correct a clerical or arithmetical mistake, or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, in its own judgment so as to give effect to what was the intention of the Court when judgment was given.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Court Does Not Sit on Appeal From Its Own Decision
In an application under the slip rule the Court does not sit on appeal from its own decision and will not entertain allegations that matters were erroneously decided; it acts only to give effect to its original intention.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Conditions for Exercise of the Jurisdiction
The slip rule may be applied in two circumstances: where the Court is satisfied it is giving effect to its intention at the time judgment was given, or, in the case of a matter overlooked, where it is satisfied beyond doubt as to the order it would have made had the matter been brought to its attention.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Correction of Currency and Interest Errors
Where the reasoned judgment clearly shows the Court's intention, a recorded award in the wrong currency and conflicting statements of the applicable interest rate and its commencement date are accidental slips correctable under the slip rule to conform to that intention.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, S.I 13-10, rule 2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, S.I 13-10, rule 36(1)

Cases cited (3)

  • Orient Bank Limited v Zaabwe & Another (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 0017 of 2017)
  • Lakhamshi Brothers Ltd v R. Raja & Sons [1966] EA 313
  • Fang Min v Dr Kaijuka Mutabaazi Emanuel (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 0006 of 2009)
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.