Wakilii

Aisu and Others v Kolir Sub- County Local Gorvernment and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 187 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 308 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to amend and correct orders in Civil Suit No. 034 of 2015 under the slip rule
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) 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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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 High Court dismissed the application to amend and correct orders in Civil Suit No. 034 of 2015. The court held that the proposed corrections did not constitute clerical or mathematical errors within the slip rule. The change in land description from 21.421 hectares to 131.000 hectares introduced in a rejoinder without leave of court was not a valid amendment and did not reflect the court's original intention. The court's finding of no case against the 2nd and 3rd defendants was deliberate and based on the evidence, not an error requiring correction.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

The applicants had instituted Civil Suit No. 0034 of 2015 claiming customary ownership of land described in the plaint as 21.421 hectares comprised in Vol. HQ T8, Folio 1, Plots 231 and 232, Block 5, Kolir Bukedea District. In a rejoinder to the written statement of defence, the applicants changed the land description to 131.000 hectares. The court delivered judgment on 1 November 2022, partly in favour of the plaintiffs, ordering cancellation of the title to 21.421 hectares and finding no case against the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The applicants then brought this application seeking to amend the judgment to reflect the larger land area and to find a case against the 2nd defendant, arguing these were clerical errors under the slip rule.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a clerical error or arithmetic mistake in the judgment in Civil Suit No. 034 of 2015.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties in the circumstances.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Applicants ordered to meet the costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Slip Rule — Scope and Application — Clerical and Mathematical Errors
The slip rule under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act permits correction only of clerical or mathematical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors arising from accidental slip or omission. The court will apply the slip rule only where it is fully satisfied that it is giving effect to the intention of the court at the time when judgment was given, or where it is satisfied beyond doubt as to the order which it would have made had a matter been brought to its attention.
Amendment of Pleadings — Rejoinder — Introduction of New Matter
A rejoinder to a written statement of defence must reply to the content in the written statement of defence and not introduce new material facts. A fundamental change to the description of suit property introduced in a rejoinder without leave of court does not constitute a valid amendment of the plaint and does not bind the court.
Amendment of Pleadings — Time Limits — Leave of Court
Under Order 6 Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a party may amend their pleadings without leave of court within 14 days after service of the written statement of defence. Any amendment sought after this period requires leave of court. An attempted amendment made in a rejoinder filed beyond the statutory time limit without leave of court is invalid.
Affidavits — Authority to Swear — Joint Applications
In applications involving multiple applicants, what is most important is that the deponent of the affidavit in support is knowledgeable of or believes the facts which he deposes. A party to a suit does not require authority from co-applicants to depose an affidavit in support of the application as long as it is not done on behalf of others who have not authorised him to do so. The knowledge or belief of the deponent is of greater importance than the mandate of representation or authorisation by a party to the litigation.
Functus Officio — Exceptions — Slip Rule
After passing judgment, a court becomes functus officio and cannot revisit its judgment or purport to exercise judicial power over the same matter. However, exceptions exist under Sections 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act, which allow the court on its own motion or on application by a party to rectify clerical or mathematical errors in order to give effect to the judgment. The slip rule does not permit a court to give an order which alters the judgment or orders made earlier.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (11)

  • David Muhenda v Humphrey Mirembe (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 5 of 2012)
  • Paineto Semalulu v Nakitto Eva Kasule (HCCA No. 004 of 2008)
  • Jani Properties Limited v Dar es Salaam City Council [1966] EA 281
  • Lakhamshi Brothers Limited v R. Raja & Sons [1966] EA 313
  • Fang Min v Dr Kaijuka Mutabazi Emmanuel (SCCA No. 06 of 2009)
  • UDB v Oil Seeds (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 15 of 1977)
  • Esemu Nicholas and Another v Mwitanirwa Charles (HCMA No. 952 of 2020)
  • Dr Akampumuza v Absa Bank Uganda Limited and 2 Others (HCMA No. 999 of 2021)
  • Namutebi Matilda v Ssemanda Simon and 2 Others (HCMA No. 430 of 2021)
  • Raniga v Jivraj [1965] EA 700
  • Okwatum Israel v Kolir Sub-County Local Government (Civil Suit No. 24 of 2007)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Aisu and Others v Kolir Sub- County Local Gorvernment and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 187 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 308 (21 September 2023)
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.