Wakilii

Kwizera v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal 1 of 2008)

Supreme Court · [2017] UGSC 3 · 2017 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal to the Supreme Court from a ruling of the Constitutional Court dismissing an application to correct an order on costs under the slip rule
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the Constitutional Court's refusal to apply the slip rule and its costs orders upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 13 (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 an appeal against the Constitutional Court's refusal to use the slip rule to award the partially successful petitioner the costs of his petition. The slip rule can only correct clerical or accidental slips so as to give effect to the court's intention; it cannot be used to alter a deliberate exercise of judicial discretion or correct an error of substance. The original costs order was a deliberate exercise of discretion under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, so the proper remedy was an appeal, not the slip rule. The appellant's complaints were a camouflaged appeal against the costs order and could not be entertained in slip-rule proceedings.

Facts

In 2005 Parliament amended the Constitution by Act No. 11 of 2005, introducing Article 80(4), which required government employees wishing to stand for Parliament to resign at least 90 days before nomination day. The amendment was assented to on 26 September 2005 and the Electoral Commission later fixed nomination days in January 2006, leaving less than 90 days. The appellant, then a Special Presidential Assistant intending to contest, challenged the provision in Constitutional Petition No. 14 of 2005. The Constitutional Court allowed the petition in part but ordered each party to bear its own costs. Believing he was entitled to costs as the successful party, the appellant applied under the slip rule (Constitutional Application No. 18 of 2006) to have the costs order corrected in his favour. The Constitutional Court held the slip rule inapplicable because its costs order had been a deliberate exercise of discretion under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, and dismissed the application with costs, prompting this appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the slip rule under Rule 36 of the Court of Appeal Rules applied so as to correct the Constitutional Court's order that each party bear its own costs and substitute an order awarding costs to the appellant.
  2. Whether the Constitutional Court erred in holding that it had the discretion not to award costs to the partially successful appellant.
  3. Whether the Constitutional Court erred in dismissing the appellant's slip-rule application with costs to the respondent.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • No order as to costs of the appeal.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Scope and Limits
The slip rule permits correction only of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from an accidental slip or omission so as to give effect to the court's intention when judgment was given; it cannot be used to correct errors of substance or to add to or detract from the original order.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Deliberate Exercise of Discretion Not Correctable
Where a court has made an order in the deliberate exercise of its discretion, an alleged error in that exercise cannot be corrected under the slip rule; the proper remedy is an appeal to a higher court.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Judicial Discretion under Section 27 Civil Procedure Act
The award of costs is in the discretion of the court and costs normally follow the event, but the court may for good reason decline to award costs to a successful party; the discretion must be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily, and a court departing from the general rule is obliged to give reasons.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Application Disguised as Slip-Rule Correction
An application that in substance challenges the merits of a court's deliberate decision is a camouflaged appeal and is not tenable as a slip-rule application.
Constitutional Law — Public Interest Litigation — Distinction from Private Litigation
Litigation brought by an individual to vindicate his own constitutional rights does not become public interest litigation merely because the resulting decision benefits the wider public; public interest litigation is brought for and in the interest of the public to redress a public injury or enforce a public duty.
Constitutional Law — Costs in Public Interest Litigation
The mere presence of a public interest aspect in proceedings does not of itself warrant departure from the rule that costs follow the event; where costs are awarded in genuine public interest litigation they should be nominal so as not to stifle the growth of constitutional jurisprudence.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap 71) s.27
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap 71) s.99
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.36
  • Supreme Court Rules r.35
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 80(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 137
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 50(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 21
  • Constitution (Amendment) Act No. 11 of 2005

Cases cited (19)

  • Vallabhadas Karsandas Raniga v Mansuklal Jivraj & Ors (1965) EA 700
  • Adam Vassiliadis v Libyan Arab (U) Bank for Foreign Trade and Development (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1992)
  • Lakhamshi Brothers v Raja and Sons [1966] EA 313
  • Iyamulemye David v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2013)
  • Fox Odoi-Oywelowo v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 8 of 2003)
  • Fang Min v Dr. Kaijuka Mutabaazi Emmanuel (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2009)
  • Zaituna Kawuma v George Mwalurum (Civil Application No. 3 of 1992)
  • Orient Bank v Frederick Zaabwe & Anor (Civil Application No. 17 of 2007)
  • Ahmed Kawooya Kaugu v Bangu Aggrey Fred (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2007)
  • Bentley v O'Sullivan (1962) All ER Rep 546
  • SDV Transami v Nsibambi Enterprises [2008] HCB 94
  • Besigye Kizza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and Electoral Commission (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Wambugu v Public Service Commission [1972] EA 296
  • Prince J. Mpuga Rukidi v Prince Solomon Iguru & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1994)
  • Attorney General v Major Gen. David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Advocates for Natural Resources Governance and Development & 2 Ors v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 40 of 2013)
  • S.P. Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149
  • People's Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India (1983) 1 SCR 456
  • Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
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.