Wakilii

Adam Vassiliadis v Libyan Arab (U) Bank For Foreign Trade and Development Limited (Civil Application 28 of 1992)

Supreme Court · [1993] UGSC 23 · 1993 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under the slip rule (Rule 35(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court) to correct an alleged omission in the court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1990
Decision
Application to correct the judgment refused and dismissed; matter referred to the Registrar of Titles and the Minister to determine the registered owner's status

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 court refused an application under the slip rule to correct its earlier appellate judgment by adding orders for specific performance and remission for assessment of damages. The slip rule operates only to give effect to the court's actual or clearly intended decision when judgment was given; it cannot supply an order the court deliberately withheld. Because it remained unproven whether the registered Mailo owner was an African, ordering specific performance might contravene the Land Transfer Act, so the omission was deliberate, not an accidental slip. Damages would follow only if transfer were registrable. The application was dismissed with costs, the court directing that the owner's status be ascertained by the Registrar of Titles and referred to the Minister.

Outcome

Application to correct the judgment refused and dismissed; matter referred to the Registrar of Titles and the Minister to determine the registered owner's status

Facts

The applicant had successfully appealed (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1990) against the dismissal of his suit for specific performance of an agreement to buy a block of flats from the respondent bank. The trial court had held the sale unenforceable under the Land Transfer Act (LTA) because the Minister's consent had not been obtained, on the basis that the registered Mailo owner, 'Musoke', was an African. On appeal the court allowed the appeal, finding no evidence proved Musoke was an African, so the basis for applying the LTA did not exist. However, the appellate judgment did not order specific performance or transfer of the property, nor remit the case for assessment of damages. The applicant brought this application under the slip rule to correct that omission. During the appeal hearing the applicant's counsel had abandoned argument on damages after the court intimated the matter would be remitted if the first ground succeeded.

Issues

  1. Whether the omission of orders for specific performance and remission of the case for assessment of damages from the court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1990 was an accidental slip correctable under Rule 35(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether the court could order specific performance of the sale agreement where it remained undetermined whether the registered Mailo owner was an African for the purposes of the Land Transfer Act.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.
  • The parties to refer the matter to the Registrar of Titles, together with any evidence assisting in deciding whether Musoke was or was not an African.
  • The Registrar of Titles to then refer the matter to the Minister for his decision.
  • A copy of the Ruling and Orders to be forwarded to the Registrar of Titles and the Minister.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Scope of Power to Correct Judgments
A slip order under Rule 35(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court may be made only where the court is fully satisfied that it is giving effect to the intention of the court at the time judgment was given, or, in the case of a matter overlooked, where it is satisfied beyond doubt as to the order it would have made had the matter been brought to its attention.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Deliberate Omission Not Correctable
The slip rule cannot be invoked to supply an order that the court deliberately withheld; where an omitted order was a considered decision rather than an accidental slip or oversight, the rule has no application.
Land & Property — Land Transfer Act — Specific Performance Refused Where Owner's Status Unresolved
A court will not order specific performance of a land sale agreement where doing so may contravene the Land Transfer Act, the enforceability of the agreement turning on the unresolved question whether the registered owner was an African requiring the Minister's consent.
Land & Property — Land Transfer Act — Burden of Proving Owner's Race
The burden of proving that a registered proprietor was an African for the purposes of the Land Transfer Act lies on the party asserting it; an African-sounding name, without more, is not sufficient proof on the balance of probabilities.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Land Transfer Act s.2
  • Land Transfer Act s.4
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.35(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.1(3)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.29(1)(b)

Cases cited (9)

  • Raniga v Jivraj [1965] EA 703
  • Lakhamshi Brothers v Raja and Sons [1966] EA 313
  • Zituna Kawuma v George Mwa Luwum (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1992)
  • Stirling Civil Engineering (U) Ltd versus Margaret Zirumira and others. Civil Appeal No of 1991 (unreported)
  • Mutual Shipping Co-op of New York vs Bayswater Shipping Co-op of Monrovia (1985) ALL ER. 520
  • Vallabhdas Karshandas Raghiga Mansuklal ivni and others 19 EA 70
  • Shamtilal N. Patel v Registrar of Titles (1949) 16 EACA 46
  • Motibhai Manji v Khursid Begum [1957] EA 101
  • Ngakwila v Lalani [1972] EA 382

Cases citing this judgment (3)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Adam Vassiliadis v Libyan Arab (U) Bank For Foreign Trade and Development Limited (Civil Application 28 of 1992) [1993] UGSC 23 (12 January 1993)
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.