Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust v General Parts (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2000)

Supreme Court · [2000] UGSC 21 · 2000 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application to the Supreme Court to recall and set aside or correct part of its own judgment in a second appeal, brought under the slip rule and the Court's inherent power.

Decision

Application to recall the judgment dismissed; the finding and holding on the mortgage's execution slightly modified to avoid misconstruction as res judicata; respondent awarded 4/5 of costs.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (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

The Court refused to recall its judgment. The slip rule (r.34) corrects only accidental slips or matters the court could lawfully have considered on the record; the impugned finding rested on Exh.P9, which was properly in evidence and correctly found to bear no common seal, so there was no slip to correct. A blunder committed at trial in producing a copy not identical to the original could not be cured under the slip rule, and r.29(1) barred admitting a document never tendered. Although inherent power under r.1(3) is not limited by r.29(1), the Court declined to exercise it because the holding rested on additional grounds the applicant never addressed. The application substantially failed.

Facts

Uganda Commercial Bank sued General Parts (U) Ltd in HCCS No. 386 of 1993, seeking a declaration that it had properly appointed a Receiver/Manager under a debenture securing loan facilities. Copies of a mortgage (Exh.P9) and the debenture (Exh.D6) were produced in evidence. The trial court granted the declaration. General Parts appealed to the Court of Appeal (CA No. 20 of 1998), where NPART, as assignee successor to UCB, was respondent; the appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal held the mortgage validly executed. On a second appeal (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1999), the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower judgments, and held the mortgage was not validly executed — Exh.P9 bore no common seal, no power of attorney was produced, and there was apparent non-compliance with the Registration of Titles Act. NPART then applied to recall that holding, contending the original and duplicate mortgage in fact bore General Parts' common seal, though the impression did not appear on the photocopy Exh.P9.

Issues

Whether the Court's finding and holding that the suit mortgage was not validly executed could be corrected under the slip rule (r.34).
Whether the alleged error was a matter 'overlooked' within the meaning of the slip rule.
Whether the Court could, under its inherent power (r.1(3)), receive the original mortgage as additional evidence despite the bar in r.29(1) and reverse its holding.

Orders

The application substantially fails and is dismissed.
The finding is modified by substituting the expression 'does not appear to have affixed'.
The holding is modified by inserting the words 'proved to have been'.
The respondent is awarded 4/5 of the costs of the application.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Scope and Purpose

The slip rule permits correction of a clerical or arithmetical mistake, or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, only so as to give effect to what was the intention of the court when judgment was given, or, where a matter was overlooked, to the order it would have made beyond doubt had the matter been brought to its attention.

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Meaning of a Matter Overlooked

A matter 'overlooked' for the purposes of the slip rule is one the court could lawfully have looked at or acted upon when deciding the appeal — a matter available or implicit in the record of appeal, or necessarily and clearly consequential upon the decision; it cannot be a matter that was not in evidence or that does not follow from the findings on appeal.

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Errors Committed at Trial

The slip rule cannot be invoked to correct a blunder committed at trial, such as producing in evidence a copy document not identical with its original, where that blunder was not corrected by review and was incapable of founding a ground of appeal.

Civil Procedure — Additional Evidence — Second Appeals (r.29(1))

On a second appeal from the Court of Appeal the Supreme Court has no discretion under r.29(1) to take additional evidence, and it would contravene that rule to take into consideration a document not produced in evidence at the trial or as additional evidence on the first appeal.

Civil Procedure — Inherent Power of the Court (r.1(3))

The Court's jurisdiction to recall and alter its judgment is not limited to the slip rule but extends to its inherent power under r.1(3), which is not inhibited by r.29(1), so that in appropriate circumstances additional evidence may be received to achieve the ends of justice; however the power will not be exercised where doing so could not alter the result.

Land & Property — Mortgages — Validity of Execution under the Registration of Titles Act

A finding that a mortgage was not validly executed may rest on several independent grounds — the absence of the mortgagor's common seal on the instrument in evidence, failure to produce the enabling power of attorney, and non-compliance with the signing and registration provisions of the Registration of Titles Act — so that correcting one ground does not disturb the holding while the others stand.

Legislation cited (10)

Rules of the Supreme Court 1996 r.1(3)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1996 r.34
Rules of the Supreme Court 1996 r.29(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1996 r.41
Rules of the Supreme Court 1996 r.42
Registration of Titles Act s.114
Registration of Titles Act s.141
Registration of Titles Act s.154
Registration of Titles Act s.156
Land Transfer Act (Cap.202)

Cases cited (6)

Raniga v Jivraj (1965) EA 700
Lakhamshi Brothers Ltd v R. Raja & Sons (1966) EA 313
Zaituna Kawuma v George Mwalurum (Civil Application No. 3 of 1992)
Salim Jamal & Others v Uganda Oxygen Ltd & Others (Civil Application No. 13 of 1997)
Adam Vassiliadis v Libyan Arab Uganda Bank (Civil Application No. 28 of 1992)
Raichand Lakhamshi v Assanand (1957) EA 82

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.