Wakilii

Muhenda v Mirembe [2014] UGSC 8

Supreme Court · 2014 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court to recall, vary or amend its own earlier judgment and to apply the slip rule to correct alleged misdescription of boundaries.
Decision
Application to recall and vary the court's judgment dismissed with costs

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

The Supreme Court dismissed the application. Its power under rule 2(2) to recall a judgment exists only to give effect to its clear intention where there was an omission, not to allow a party to have the court sit on appeal against its own final decision. The court had not itself described the suit boundaries — it merely adopted the appellate judge's description — so there was nothing to clarify, vary or correct under the slip rule (rule 35), which is confined to clerical or arithmetic errors. Any grievance about property taken during execution lay in objector proceedings under s.31(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and O.22 r.50, or a fresh suit. The 12-year delay was in any event inordinate and unjustified.

Facts

Margaret Kamuje obtained judgment over a piece of land in a 1976 Grade II Magistrate's suit. After two decades unable to occupy it, she sought execution in 1993. Six objectors, including the applicant David Muhenda, objected; the magistrate allowed some objections but granted execution against others. The High Court dismissed the objectors' appeal and ordered execution. On second appeal in 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and ordered eviction of persons occupying the decreed property, with boundaries as described by the High Court judge who had visited the locus. During execution, the applicant claimed that land of the late Kezia Rujumba, said to lie to the south beyond the suit property, was unlawfully included and taken by the decree holder. In 2012 he applied to the Supreme Court to recall and vary its judgment and to apply the slip rule to correct the alleged misdescription of boundaries.

Issues

  1. Whether the Supreme Court should recall and vary, amend or clarify its 2000 judgment, or apply the slip rule under rules 2(2) and 35, to make provision for the estate of Kezia Rujumba and correct an alleged misdescription of the suit boundaries.
  2. Whether there was any clerical or other error in the court's judgment capable of correction under the slip rule.
  3. Whether the application, brought 12 years after the judgment, was defeated by inordinate delay notwithstanding the 'at any time' wording of rule 35(2).

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Recall of Judgment — Scope of the Court's Power
The Supreme Court's power under rule 2(2) of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions to recall its judgment is not open-ended; it may be exercised only to give effect to what would clearly have been the court's intention had there not been an omission, and not to enable a party to have the court sit on appeal against its own previous decision.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Limits of Correction
The slip rule under rule 35 corrects only clerical or arithmetic errors on the face of the record; it cannot be invoked to reopen or re-determine substantive matters already decided.
Civil Procedure — Finality of Litigation — Reversal of Own Decision
A decision of the Supreme Court on any issue of law is final, and the unsuccessful party cannot apply for its reversal in the same proceedings.
Statutory Interpretation — Rule 35(2) — Meaning of 'at any time' — Inordinate Delay
Although rule 35(2) permits correction of an order 'at any time', that phrase does not operate in perpetuity; an application must be brought within a reasonable time and with due diligence, and inordinate unexplained delay will lead the court to refuse to entertain it.
Land & Property — Execution — Proper Remedy for Property Wrongly Taken
Where a person complains that property was wrongly taken during execution of a decree, the proper remedy is objector proceedings under section 31(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 22 rule 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules, or a fresh suit, rather than an application to recall and vary the judgment.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions (S.I. 13-11) r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions (S.I. 13-11) r.35
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions (S.I. 13-11) r.35(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.31(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.50

Cases cited (8)

  • Orient Bank Ltd v Fredrick Zaabwe & Anor (Civil Application No. 17 of 2007)
  • Fang Min v Dr. Kaijuka Mutabazi Emmanuel (Civil Appeal No. 06 of 2009)
  • Vallabhadas Karsandas Raniga v Mansukhal Jurraj & Ors (1965) E.A. 700
  • Livingstone Sewanyana v Martin Aliker (Miscellaneous Application No. 40 of 1991)
  • Nsereko Joseph Kisukye & Others v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
  • Lakhamshi Brothers Ltd v R. Raja and Sons [1966] E.A. 313
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Pandya v. R [1957] E.A.
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.