Wakilii

DFCU Bank Limited (Formerly Crane Bank Ltd) v Walusimbi Nelson T/A Walusimbi & Co. Advocates (Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 89 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of an order reinstating a miscellaneous application
Decision
Application for review allowed; erroneous reinstatement order 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 held that there was an error apparent on the face of the record where a Judge's order purported to reinstate Miscellaneous Application No. 389 of 2018 under Miscellaneous Application No. 649 of 2018, which was actually an application for reinstatement of Taxation Application No. 64 of 2018. The court further held that a Registrar has no power to review a decision made by a Judge and should have referred the matter back to the trial Judge. The application for review was allowed and the erroneous reinstatement order was set aside.

Outcome

Application for review allowed; erroneous reinstatement order set aside

Facts

The respondent, an advocate, filed Miscellaneous Application No. 389 of 2018 seeking recovery of costs for legal services provided to Crane Bank (now DFCU Bank) in Civil Suit No. 297 of 2015. The application was dismissed for want of prosecution. Subsequently, the respondent filed Miscellaneous Application No. 649 of 2018 seeking to reinstate Taxation Application No. 64 of 2018. On 24 October 2019, Justice Lydia Mugambe Ssali made an order in MA No. 649 of 2018, but the extracted order erroneously reinstated MA No. 389 of 2018 instead of TA No. 64 of 2018. The applicant was served with this erroneous order on 19 November 2019. The respondent admitted the error and claimed a Registrar corrected it, but two different orders signed by different Registrars on different dates appeared on the court record with no formal application for rectification.

Issues

  1. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order reinstating Miscellaneous Application No. 389 of 2018.
  2. Whether a Registrar has power to correct or review an order made by a Judge of the High Court.

Orders

  • The Order for re-instatement of Misc. Application No. 389 of 2018, issued by Justice Lydia Mugambe Ssali on the 24th of October 2019 in Misc. Application No. 649 of 2018 be and is hereby reviewed and set aside.
  • The Respondent pays costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error apparent on the face of the record must be an evident error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness and must be so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on record.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Grounds for Review
Where a Judge's order purports to reinstate one miscellaneous application under a different miscellaneous application that was filed for an entirely different purpose, this constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order 46 rule 1(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Administrative Law — Powers of Registrars — Limits on Authority
A Registrar has no power to review or correct a decision made by a Judge of the High Court and should instead refer the matter to the trial Judge for action under Order 50 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (2)

  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2001] 2 EA 173

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

DFCU Bank Limited (Formerly Crane Bank Ltd) v Walusimbi Nelson T_A Walusimbi & Co. Advocates (Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 89 (30 March 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.