Wakilii

Attorney General v Aliu and Others (Civil Appeal No.57 of 2008)

Court of Appeal · [2009] UGCA 86 · 2009 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court order varying or amending a decree under the slip rule / review provisions
Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court order varying the decree set aside

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

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 of Appeal allowed the Attorney General's appeal, holding that the trial judge wrongly varied a decree to add interest until final payment. There was no clerical or mathematical error on the face of the record justifying use of the slip rule under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, nor grounds for review under section 82. The respondents had claimed and been awarded interest for the specific periods pleaded in the plaint, which had already been fully paid. Ordering interest until payment in full effectively awarded compound interest (interest upon interest), which was not warranted absent an agreement or established basis. The High Court's variation order was set aside with costs.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; High Court order varying the decree set aside

Facts

The respondents were former employees of the Uganda Advisory Board of Trade, which the Government dissolved. Their salary arrears and terminal benefits were paid between June 1996 and November 1997, but without interest. In 1998 they sued in the High Court claiming interest for the inordinate delay, particularising interest at 25% per annum for specific periods stated in the plaint. Judgment was entered in their favour and the decree, drawn by their counsel and signed by the judge, awarded 25% interest for those stated periods plus costs. The Registrar calculated over Shs 4.7 billion plus costs, which the Government paid in installments, completing payment in January 2003. In 2004 the respondents applied under section 102 of the Civil Procedure Act to vary the judgment so that interest would accrue until payment in full as prayed in the plaint. The trial judge granted the application. The Attorney General appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether there were grounds for review of the judgment in the original civil suit.
  2. Whether the slip rule under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act was applicable to vary the decree to provide that interest accrue until payment in full.
  3. Whether the trial judge erred in awarding interest on a claim for interest, amounting to compound interest.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • The judgment and orders of the High Court are set aside.
  • Costs of the appeal to the appellant, both in this Court and in the High Court.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule (CPA s.99) — Correction of Clerical or Mathematical Errors
The slip rule under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act may only be applied to correct a matter which the court could lawfully have looked at and which was available at the time of deciding the case but was overlooked, so as to give effect to the court's original intention; it cannot be used to introduce relief the court declined to grant.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment (CPA s.82) — Grounds Required
Review of a judgment is available only on discovery of new and important evidence, an error or mistake apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient cause; an error on the face of the record must be obvious and self-evident and not require elaborate argument to establish.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Compound Interest — Interest Upon Interest
An order that interest continue to accrue until payment in full, where the claim and award were confined to interest for specific pleaded periods that have been fully paid, has the effect of awarding compound interest, which is not permitted absent an agreement or other recognised basis for its allowance.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Relief Claimed (Order 7 rule 7)
A plaintiff must state the relief being claimed; where the court refuses to grant a particular relief that was prayed for, that refusal cannot subsequently be corrected under the slip rule as though it were an accidental omission.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

  • Attorney General v Virchand Mithalal & Sons Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2007)
  • Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust v General Parts (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2000)
  • Ranisa v Jivra [1965] EA 700
  • Lakhamshi Brothers Ltd v Raja & Sons [1966] EA 313

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attorney General v Aliu and Others (Civil Appeal No.57 of 2008) [2009] UGCA 86 (16 October 2009)
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.