Fang Min v Dr.Kaijuka Mutabazi Emmanuel [2010] UGSC 3

Supreme Court · 2010 Application Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application under the slip rule to recall and correct a Supreme Court judgment

Decision

Application allowed; the Supreme Court's judgment corrected under the slip rule by removing the alternative order for payment of the market value of the suit house

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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

The Supreme Court held that its alternative order requiring payment of the market value of the suit house if specific performance could not be performed was an accidental slip. That relief had not been included in the respondent's prayers on appeal, which sought only to restore the judgment and orders of the High Court, and the omission of that fact had been overlooked. Applying rule 35(1) and the principles in the Orient Bank case, the court was satisfied beyond doubt it would not have made the order had the matter been brought to its attention. The court corrected the judgment by removing the market-value order, leaving the orders to stop at restoring the High Court's judgment.

Facts

The applicant and respondent executed a written agreement for the sale of property at Plot 13, Malcolm-X Avenue, Kololo, Kampala. A dispute arose and the applicant terminated the contract, secretly paying back into the respondent's bank account the part purchase price he had paid. The respondent sued for breach of contract in the High Court, which gave judgment in his favour and ordered specific performance with alternative orders, including general damages of twenty million shillings. The applicant's appeal to the Court of Appeal succeeded, but on the respondent's further appeal the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and restored the High Court's judgment, adding an alternative order that if specific performance could not be performed the market value of the suit house was to be paid by way of damages. The respondent's prayers on that appeal had sought only to set aside the Court of Appeal's decision and reinstate the High Court's judgment and orders; payment of the market value had not been part of those prayers.

Issues

Whether the alternative order for payment of the market value of the suit house in lieu of specific performance was an accidental slip or omission correctable under rule 35(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Whether the application was premature in light of the contention that specific performance was still possible.

Orders

The application is allowed.
The alternative order for payment, by way of damages, of the market value of the suit house if specific performance cannot be performed is removed.
The orders of the court in the Civil Appeal are amended to read: "The appeal is allowed and the judgment and orders of the Court of Appeal are set aside. The judgment and orders of the High Court are restored with costs here and in the two courts below."
No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Scope of rule 35(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court

Under the slip rule, a court may correct an accidental slip or omission in its judgment only where it is satisfied that it is giving effect to the court's intention at the time judgment was given, or, in the case of a matter that was 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 — Relief granted beyond the prayers sought

An order granting relief that was not included in the successful party's prayers, and whose omission from those prayers was overlooked by the court, constitutes an accidental slip or omission that may be corrected under the slip rule by deleting that order.

Legislation cited (3)

Rules of the Supreme Court r.2(2)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.35(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.42

Cases cited (3)

Orient Bank v Fredrick Zaabwe and Another (Civil Application No. 17 of 2007)
Lakhamishi Brothers Ltd v R. Raja and Sons (1966) EA 313
the Ranaiga case (1965) EA at p. 703

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.