Wakilii

DFCU Bank Limited v Walusimbi (Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 94 · 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
Erroneous reinstatement order reviewed and 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 found errors apparent on the face of the record where a Judge's order purported to reinstate MA No. 389 of 2018 under MA No. 649 of 2018, which was actually an application to reinstate TA No. 64 of 2018. The court held that a Registrar lacks jurisdiction to review a Judge's decision 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

Erroneous reinstatement order reviewed and set aside

Facts

DFCU Bank (formerly Crane Bank) was served with an order dated 24 October 2019 reinstating Miscellaneous Application No. 389 of 2018. Upon examining the court record, the bank discovered that no application for reinstatement of MA 389/2018 had been filed. The order had been extracted from MA No. 649/2018, which sought to reinstate Taxation Application No. 64/2018, not MA 389/2018. The respondent advocate admitted the error and claimed the Registrar had corrected it after the Judge made the order. Two different orders signed by different Registrars on different dates appeared on the court record, with no formal application for rectification filed.

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 review or correct 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 error to remain on record.
Civil Procedure — Powers of Registrars — Limits of Jurisdiction
A Registrar has no jurisdiction to review or correct a decision made by a Judge of the High Court and should instead refer such matters to the trial Judge for action under Order 50 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
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, and the court record contains contradictory orders with no formal application for rectification, these constitute errors apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order 46 rule 1(b) 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 v Walusimbi (Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 94 (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.