Wakilii

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

Supreme Court · [2017] UGSC 9 · 2017 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under the slip rule and the inherent jurisdiction of the court to correct an order of the Supreme Court in Attorney General v Susan Kigula (SCCA No. 3 of 2006).
Decision
Application dismissed; applicants held not entitled to remission under the slip rule.

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 applicants, condemned prisoners affected by the Kigula decision, sought under the slip rule to correct the Supreme Court order commuting their confirmed death sentences to life imprisonment without remission, arguing they should instead benefit from remission under the Prisons Act. The Court dismissed the application. The application was brought after an inordinate and unjustified delay of over eight years and was therefore dilatory. Further, the commutation order was a deliberate and manifest exercise of the court's intention, not an accidental slip or an error apparent on the record; the two Kigula orders served distinct purposes. The slip rule cannot be used to make the court sit on appeal in its own judgment.

Facts

The applicants were among the parties to Attorney General v Susan Kigula and 417 Others (SCCA No. 3 of 2006). They had been convicted of capital offences and sentenced to death under mandatory death-sentence provisions of the laws of Uganda. In the Kigula case, the Constitutional Court held that mandatory death sentences were unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court confirmed that finding. The Supreme Court issued two orders: for convicts whose death sentences had already been confirmed by the highest court, their petitions for mercy under Article 121 were to be processed within three years, failing which the sentence would be deemed commuted to life imprisonment without remission; for convicts whose appeals were still pending, the cases were remitted to the High Court for a hearing on mitigation of sentence. The applicants fell under the first order. On 22 March 2016, over eight years after the 21 January 2008 decision, they applied under the slip rule, contending that the first order was an accidental slip or an error of law apparent on the record, and that they should be entitled to remission under the Prisons Act like the second category of convicts.

Issues

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

Orders

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

Key headnotes

Slip Rule — Scope and Limits of the Court's Jurisdiction
The slip rule and the inherent power of the court to recall its judgment may be exercised only to give effect to what would clearly have been the court's intention had there not been an omission; they cannot be invoked to circumvent the finality of decisions or to have the court sit on appeal in its own judgment.
Slip Rule — Effect of Inordinate Delay
An application under the slip rule brought after inordinate and unjustified delay will be refused; the phrase "at any time" in the rules of court does not permit inordinately delayed applications that are not supported by sufficient justifying reasons.
Slip Rule — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
Under the slip rule the court cannot correct a mistake arising from its own misunderstanding of the law, even where apparent on the face of the record; the only correctable error is one in expressing the manifest intention of the court at the time judgment was given.
Mandatory Death Sentence — Commutation and Remission
Where a condemned prisoner's death sentence had already been confirmed by the highest appellate court, commutation to life imprisonment without remission was a deliberate order distinct in purpose from the order remitting pending cases to the High Court for mitigation; such a prisoner cannot claim remission under the Prisons Act, which would arise only after the presidential prerogative of mercy under Article 121 is exercised.

Legislation cited (18)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.99
  • Civil Procedure Act s.82(b)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.46(1)(b)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.34(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.35(1) and (2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.42(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 24
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 44
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 121
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 20
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 21
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 22
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28
  • Trial on Indictments Act s.99(1)
  • Prisons Act
  • Penal Code Act

Cases cited (10)

  • David Muhende v Humphrey Mirembe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2012)
  • Attorney General v Susan Kigula and 417 Others (Supreme Court 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)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Oil Seeds (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 15 of 1977)
  • Ambaa Jacob and Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 103 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.