Wakilii

Katuramu & 49 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Application 1 of 2016)

Supreme Court · [2017] UGSC 31 · 2017 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under the slip rule and the court's inherent powers seeking correction of an alleged error in a prior Supreme Court order.
Decision
Application under the slip rule dismissed; applicants not entitled to remission.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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 Supreme Court dismissed an application under the slip rule seeking to amend Order No. 1 in the Kigula case, which commuted confirmed death sentences to life imprisonment without remission. The Court held the applicants were guilty of inordinate and dilatory conduct, having filed over eight years after the decision without sufficient justification. On the merits, it held the order was deliberate and well-intended, not an accidental slip, omission, or error of law apparent on the face of the record. The slip rule and the court's inherent power to recall a judgment cannot be invoked to correct a mistake of law or to make the court sit on appeal of its own decision.

Facts

The applicants were 50 condemned prisoners who had been parties to the Kigula case (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2006). Each had been convicted of capital offences under the Penal Code Act and sentenced to a mandatory death sentence. In Kigula, the Constitutional Court held, and the Supreme Court confirmed, that mandatory death sentences were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court made two orders: Order No. 1, for those whose death sentences had already been confirmed by the highest court, deemed their sentences commuted to life imprisonment without remission where the Executive failed to act on a mercy petition within three years; Order No. 2 remitted the cases of those whose appeals were still pending to the High Court for mitigation of sentence. The applicants fell under Order No. 1. On 22 March 2016 — over eight years after the Kigula decision of 21 January 2008 — they applied under the slip rule, contending Order No. 1 was an accidental slip or error of law apparent on the record and that they should be entitled to remission under the Prisons Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants are guilty of dilatory and indolent conduct in instituting the application.
  2. Whether the order commuting the applicants' sentences to life imprisonment without remission was an accidental slip or omission, or a mistake or error of law apparent on the face of the record.
  3. If so, whether the applicants are entitled to remission of their sentences.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • In the interest of justice, parties shall bear their own costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule and Inherent Powers — Limits on Recall of Judgment
The court's inherent power and the slip rule may be invoked only to give effect to the manifest intention the court would have had but for an omission; they cannot be used to reverse a deliberate decision or to make the court sit on appeal against its own judgment.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Mistake or Error of Law on the Face of the Record
Under the slip rule the court cannot correct a mistake of law of its own, even where apparent on the face of the record; the error or omission must be one in expressing the manifest intention of the court.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Inordinate Delay and Dilatory Conduct
An inordinately delayed application under the slip rule will not be entertained absent sufficient reasons justifying the delay; the phrase "at any time" in the rules does not license unjustified delay, as litigation must come to an end.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Death Sentence — Commutation and Remission
Where a confirmed death sentence is deliberately commuted to life imprisonment without remission, that order is a manifest intention of the court and not an accidental slip; remission would only arise after the presidential prerogative of mercy under Article 121 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited (17)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.99
  • Civil Procedure Act s.82(b)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.1(b)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.2(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.34(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.35(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.35(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.42(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.35
  • Prisons Act
  • Trial on Indictments Act s.99(1)
  • Penal Code Act
  • Constitution of Uganda art.24
  • Constitution of Uganda art.44
  • Constitution of Uganda art.121

Cases cited (10)

  • David Muhende v Humphrey Mirembe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2012)
  • Attorney General v Susan Kigula and 417 Others (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2006)
  • Livingstone Sewanyana v Martin Aliker (Miscellaneous Application No. 40 of 1991)
  • Nsereko Joseph Kisukye v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2012)
  • Orient Bank Ltd v Fredrick Zaabwe and Another (Civil Application No. 17 of 2007)
  • Lakhamshi Brothers Ltd v R. Raja and Sons [1966] EA 313
  • Fangmin v Dr. Kaijuka Mutabazi Emmanuel (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2009)
  • UDB v Oil Seeds (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 15 of 1977)
  • Ambaa Jacob and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2009)
  • Ahmed Kawoya Kanga v Banga Aggrey Fred [2007] KALR 164
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.