Wakilii

Fabrice Brad Rwalinda v Stanbic Bank Limited (Civil Suit No. 235 of 2021)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 87 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex-tempore ruling on application to correct accidental slip in court record following delivery of judgment
Decision
Application to correct accidental slip in court record granted; record and judgment amended to reflect correct corporate name

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 court has inherent authority and duty to correct its records at any time to ensure accuracy. Under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act and the slip rule, clerical mistakes or errors from accidental slip or omission may be corrected. The official record of proceedings is the judge's narrative notes under Order 18 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, with electronic audio recordings serving as backup. The slip rule applies to correct accidental misstatements of fact that do not alter the court's reasoning or decision, but cannot be used to correct substantive errors or revisit the merits.

Outcome

Application to correct accidental slip in court record granted; record and judgment amended to reflect correct corporate name

Facts

Following delivery of judgment in Civil Suit No. 235 of 2021 on 7th April 2026, counsel for the plaintiff wrote to the court on 13th April 2026 pointing out an accidental slip in the record concerning the identity of an entity referenced in the plaintiff's testimony. The certified transcript of proceedings of 10th November 2021 showed that during cross-examination, the plaintiff referred to an entity called 'Veolia' throughout, not 'Ecole Francaise Les Grands Lacs'. The court listened to the audio recording and confirmed this was correct. The error arose because the plaintiff's testimony was recorded in narrative form rather than verbatim, and the witness was evasive when asked to spell the company name. The court erroneously inferred from the plaintiff's bank statement, which showed a transfer to Ecole Francais Des Grande Lacs, that this was the entity the witness could not spell, when in fact the witness had consistently referred to a different entity called Veolia.

Issues

  1. Whether the court has jurisdiction under the slip rule to correct an accidental misstatement of a corporate name in the court record and judgment after final judgment has been delivered.
  2. What constitutes the official record of court proceedings under Order 18 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. What is the scope and proper application of the slip rule under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Orders

  • The narrative record of the plaintiff's testimony given under cross-examination on 10th November 2021 is corrected by striking out the name 'Ecole Francaise Les Grands Lac' at three instances and replacing it with 'Veolia'.
  • The judgment is rectified by striking out the name 'Ecole Francaise Les Grands Lac' at two instances and replacing it with 'Veolia'.
  • The corrected parts of the record of proceedings and judgment replace the versions previously published to the parties.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Court Records — Official Record of Proceedings — Order 18 Rule 5
The official record of court proceedings is the judge's notes taken in narrative form under Order 18 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, supplemented by filed pleadings, documents, and exhibits. Digital audio recordings serve as a valuable backup to check accuracy, but the primary and official record remains the judge's notes.
Evidence — Recording of Testimony — Narrative Form versus Verbatim
Under Order 18 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, testimony is recorded as a continuous narrative of what the witness said, rather than a transcript of questions and answers. Paraphrasing answers into narrative form is necessary to ensure the record is clear, concise, and focused on relevant facts, but the essence and accuracy of the witness's testimony must be preserved without distorting meaning or intent.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Scope and Application — Section 99 Civil Procedure Act
Under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, clerical or mathematical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors arising from accidental slip or omission may be corrected at any time. The slip rule applies to genuine slips or omissions in wording made by accident, such as mis-description of a party, incorrect dates, or factual points accidentally misstated. It cannot be used to correct substantive errors of law or fact, or to revisit the merits of a decision.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Inherent Jurisdiction to Correct Records
A court has inherent authority and duty to correct its records at any time to ensure they accurately reflect the court's actions. This authority allows rectification of inadvertent errors that would not prejudice any party's rights, but does not authorise substantive changes. The key requirement is that the order should reflect the actual intention of the court.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Limitations — Functus Officio
The slip rule is not directed to pure omissions (something the judge meant to do but forgot), nor can it be used to correct substantive mistakes such as errors in law. Due to the functus officio doctrine, the court has no power to correct substantive errors concerning the decision itself even if apparent on the face of the judgment. The slip rule cannot be invoked to circumvent the principle of finality or to allow the court to have second thoughts about its judgment.
Civil Procedure — Judgments — Correction After Delivery — Accidental Misstatements
Where a judgment contains an error that the judge acknowledges when pointed out, the judgment should be corrected unless there is very good reason not to do so. Corrections of accidentally misstated names or facts can be made at any time, even after final judgment, because they do not change the court's original intent or reasoning.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (12)

  • Mellor v Swire (1985) 30 Ch D 239
  • IC v RC [2020] All ER (D) 74
  • Erimiya Serunkuma v Elizabeth Nandyose [1959] EA 127
  • Moore v Buchanan [1967] 1 WLR 1341
  • In Re Inchcape [1942] Ch 394
  • Tak Ming Co Ltd v Yee Sang Metal Supplies Co [1973] 1 WLR 300
  • NKT Cables A/S v SP Power Systems Ltd [2001] All ER (D) 74
  • Orient Bak Limited v Fredrick Zaabwe (S.C. Civil Application No. 17 of 2007)
  • John Sanyu Katuramu and 49 Others v Attorney General of Uganda (S.C. Constitutional Application No. 1 of 2016)
  • Space Air-conditioning plc v Guy [2012] EWCA Civ 1664
  • Bath v Escott [2017] EWHC 1101
  • Fairman v Perpetual Investment Building Society [1923] AC 74

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.

Fabrice Brad Rwalinda v Stanbic Bank Limited (Civil Suit No. 235 of 2021) [2026] UGCommC 87 (16 March 2026)
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.