Mpanga Farouq v Ssenkubuge Isaac and Electoral Commission (Election Petition Application No. 48 of 2022)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 3 · 2026 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application under the slip rule to recall and correct an earlier Court of Appeal judgment on costs

Decision

Application under the slip rule dismissed with costs; the earlier costs award to the respondents stands

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 applicant sought, under the slip rule, to recall the Court of Appeal's earlier judgment and correct the award of costs to the respondents, contending he was the successful party because the cross-appeal was dismissed. The court held that the slip rule corrects only clerical or accidental errors so as to give effect to the court's intention at the time of judgment, and cannot be used to re-argue the merits or obtain substantive relief in a matter that has attained finality. Because the applicant had failed on his sole ground of appeal, the court's intention was to award costs to the respondents; there was no error on the face of the record. The application was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The applicant contested an election for Chairperson, Bweyogerere Division, Kira Municipality, Wakiso District, in which the 2nd respondent was declared validly elected. The applicant's Election Petition No. 15 of 2021 was struck out by the High Court after his supporting affidavit was found incurably defective, with costs to the respondents. On appeal (Election Petition Appeal No. 13 of 2021), the Court of Appeal set aside the striking-out, dismissed the 2nd respondent's cross-appeal, remitted the file to the High Court for trial before another judge, and awarded costs to the 1st and 2nd respondents. The applicant then brought this application under the slip rule, arguing the costs award was an accidental slip because he was the successful party and costs should have followed in his favour. The respondents contended the affidavit had been found defective, the sole ground of appeal had failed, and the costs award reflected the court's clear intention.

Issues

Whether there was any mistake or error on the face of the record in the judgment in Election Petition Appeal No. 13 of 2021 that needed correction under the slip rule.
What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

The application is dismissed.
Costs are awarded to the 1st and 2nd respondents.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Scope and Limits

The slip rule permits correction only of a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, and only so as to give effect to the intention of the court at the time judgment was given; it cannot be invoked to claim substantive relief or to reopen a matter that has attained finality.

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — No Appeal Against Own Judgment

A court will not sit on appeal against its own judgment in the same proceedings under the guise of the slip rule, and no new arguments or re-arguments on the merits are entertained to facilitate rectification.

Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion — Costs Follow the Event

The award of costs is in the discretion of the court and follows the event; a party who fails on his sole ground of appeal is not the successful party and is not entitled to costs even where an ancillary order is made in his favour.

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Burden on Applicant

An applicant invoking the slip rule must show that the error complained of was substantial in that it affected the decision; it is not every slip of the court that will result in a judgment being set aside.

Legislation cited (8)

Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 2(2)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 36(1)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 36(2)
Civil Procedure Act s.99
Civil Procedure Act s.100
Civil Procedure Act s.27(1)
Judicature Act s.33
Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act s.4(1)

Cases cited (6)

Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 873
John Kafeero Sentongo v Peterson Sozi (Civil Application No. 190 of 2021)
Ahmed Kawooya v Bangu Aggrey Fred (Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2007)
Eang Min v Dr. Kaijuka Mutabaazi Emmanuel (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2009)
Zaituni Kawuma v George Mwalurum (Civil Application No. 3 of 1992)
Iyamulemye David v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2013)

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.