Namusoke and 2 Others v Owalla's Home Investment Trust (EA) Limited and Another

Supreme Court · [2023] UGSC 48 · 2023 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application to the Supreme Court for review of its own final judgment in Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2017, invoking the slip rule and the court's inherent jurisdiction

Decision

Application for review dismissed with costs; the court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2017 stands (Mwondha JSC dissenting)

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 to review its 2019 judgment in a land title cancellation appeal. It held there was no error apparent on the face of the record and no contradiction between finding that the special certificate of title was cancelled for error and finding that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to cancel a title for fraud. The slip rule under rule 35 did not apply, and the exceptional, rarest-of-rare circumstances needed to invoke the court's inherent residual jurisdiction to review a final judgment were absent. Cancellation of a special certificate of title does not affect registered proprietorship, so the applicants were not prejudiced and remained free to pursue impeachment of title in a court of original jurisdiction.

Facts

The first respondent was registered as proprietor of mailo land at Kyadondo Block 261 Plot 173 in 1985. A special certificate of title over the same land was later issued in respect of the late Magdalene Scott Nambi, whose estate the applicants administer. The first respondent lodged a caveat and a High Court suit (later dismissed for want of prosecution) and complained to the Commissioner for Land Registration. The Commissioner issued notice of intention to cancel the applicants' special certificate on the ground it was issued in error, and subsequently cancelled it. The applicants challenged the cancellation through the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. In Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2017 the Supreme Court held the Commissioner had no power to cancel for fraud but that the special certificate had been cancelled for error, and that the first respondent's certificate remained valid. The applicants then sought review of that judgment, contending it contained contradictions, addressed un-pleaded matters, and denied them a hearing.

Issues

Whether the slip rule under rule 35(1) of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions applied to correct the impugned holdings in the court's judgment.
Whether the Supreme Court should invoke its inherent residual jurisdiction under rule 2(2) to recall and review its own final judgment.
Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record, or a contradiction between the finding that the special certificate was cancelled for error and the finding that the Commissioner had no power to cancel for fraud.
Whether the holding that the first respondent's certificate of title remains valid was made on un-pleaded matters and prejudiced the applicants such that it should be expunged.

Orders

Application for review dismissed.
Costs of the application awarded to the first respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Slip Rule (rule 35) — Scope and Limits

The slip rule permits correction only of a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an accidental slip or omission, to give effect to the court's intention at the time judgment was given; it does not authorise reopening of the court's substantive legal conclusions.

Civil Procedure — Review — Inherent Jurisdiction of the Final Appellate Court

Being the final court of the country where the rule of finality must strictly be observed, the Supreme Court may invoke its inherent residual jurisdiction to recall and review its own final judgment only in the rarest of rare circumstances where a significant injustice has probably occurred and there is no alternative effective remedy.

Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record

An error apparent on the face of the record must be manifestly self-evident and must not require an examination of documents to establish it; mere dissatisfaction with the court's decision or interpretation does not constitute such an error.

Land & Property — Special Certificate of Title — Nature and Effect under s.70 RTA

A special certificate of title issued under section 70 of the Registration of Titles Act merely replaces a lost, destroyed or obliterated duplicate certificate and must contain an exact copy of the existing register entries; its issuance and cancellation do not change registered proprietorship.

Land & Property — Cancellation of Title — Distinction Between Error and Fraud

The Commissioner for Land Registration may cancel a certificate of title issued in error under section 91(2)(a) of the Land Act, but has no jurisdiction to cancel registered proprietorship on the ground of fraud, which is reserved to the High Court exercising original jurisdiction under section 177 of the Registration of Titles Act.

Statutory Interpretation — Meaning of "Error" under s.91(2)(a) of the Land Act

An "error" within section 91(2)(a) of the Land Act is necessarily the mistake of the Registrar himself, such as issuing a special certificate where the duplicate certificate was not in fact lost, and does not extend to an entry made on the basis of an instrument lodged by a party which the Registrar believed genuine.

Legislation cited (28)

Civil Procedure Act s.80(2)
Civil Procedure Act s.82(b)
Civil Procedure Act s.98
Judicature Act s.7
Judicature Act s.17(2)
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions rule 2(2)
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions rule 35
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions rule 42
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions rule 43
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions rule 31
Land Act s.91
Land Act s.91(2)(a)
Land Act s.91(8)
Land Act s.91(9)
Registration of Titles Act s.2
Registration of Titles Act s.59
Registration of Titles Act s.70
Registration of Titles Act s.71
Registration of Titles Act s.77
Registration of Titles Act s.140
Registration of Titles Act s.175
Registration of Titles Act s.176
Registration of Titles Act s.177
Constitution of Uganda article 28
Constitution of Uganda article 44(c)
Constitution of Uganda article 274
Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules rule 30
Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules rule 102

Cases cited (18)

Lakhamshi Brothers Ltd v R Raja & Sons [1966] 1 EA 313
Somani's v Shirinkhanu (No 2) [1971] 1 EA 79
Musiara Ltd v Ntimama [2005] 1 EA 317
Vallabhadas Karsanada Raniga v Mansukhal Jivraj and Another [1965] EA 700
Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd [1979] HCB 12
Uganda Development Bank v Oil Seeds (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 1997)
Elizabeth Nalumansi Wamala v Jolly Kasande and Others (Civil Application No. 29 of 2017)
British American Tobacco Uganda Ltd v Mwijabuki and 4 Others (Civil Application No. 7 of 2013)
Batuk K. Vyas Vs Surat Municipality AIR; Supreme Court Civil Appeal No 29 of 2017
Orient Bank Ltd v Fredrick Zaabwe and Mars Trading Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2007)
National Social Security Fund vs. Alcon International Ltd
Frederick J.K Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
Farm International Ltd and Ahmed Farah v Mohamed Hamid Farih (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1993)
Sanyu Lwanga Musoke v Yakobo Ntate Mayanja (Civil Appeal No. 59 of 1995)
Kifamunte Henry v Uganda [1997] EA 72
Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
Oriental Insurance Brokers v Transocean (Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
Edward Rurangaranga v Mbarara Municipal Council (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1996)

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.