Wakilii

Ham Enterprises Uganda Limited and 2 Others v Katende and Others (Consolidated Suits) (Miscellaneous Application 307 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 9 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under the slip rule to correct clerical errors in a prior ruling
Decision
Application granted; clerical error corrected in prior ruling

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

Held that the court has jurisdiction under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct clerical errors in a judgment or ruling that do not affect its substance but merely misstate case numbers. Where the court's ruling inadvertently referred to the wrong case number when recording which suit had been withdrawn by the 5th respondent, the error constituted an accidental slip correctable under the slip rule to give effect to the court's manifest intention without prejudice to any party.

Outcome

Application granted; clerical error corrected in prior ruling

Facts

The applicants sought correction of a clerical error in the court's ruling delivered on 31 October 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 717 of 2021. The prior ruling had stated at page 5 that the 5th respondent, Kakande Bernard, who filed HCCS No. 822/2017, had filed a notice of withdrawal of that suit. At page 22, the same ruling stated that suits in HCCS No. 66/2017 and HCCS No. 330/2013 had been withdrawn. In fact, the 5th respondent had filed HCCS No. 330/2013, not HCCS No. 822/2017, and it was HCCS No. 330/2013 that he had withdrawn. The error arose from a mix-up of case numbers that did not reflect the court's actual intention when the ruling was delivered.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises grounds for correction under the slip rule.

Orders

  • The ruling and orders of the High Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 717 of 2021 be corrected under the slip rule so as to reflect that HCCS No. 330/2013 was withdrawn by the 5th Respondent and not HCCS No. 822/2017.
  • Each party shall meet their respective costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Correction of Clerical Errors in Judgments and Orders
Under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, a court has jurisdiction to correct clerical or mathematical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or orders, or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission, at any time either on its own motion or on application of any party.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Distinction Between Clerical Errors and Substantive Errors
The slip rule applies only to clerical mistakes and accidental slips or omissions in the expression of a judgment or ruling, not in its substance. The judgment or ruling must be what the court intended, but errors of transcription or recording occurred in the course of expressing it in writing.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Conditions for Exercise of Jurisdiction
The court will exercise its jurisdiction under the slip rule only where it is fully satisfied that the correction gives effect to the intention of the court at the time judgment was given, or where a matter was inadvertently omitted and the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the order it would have made had the matter been brought to its attention. The court will not sit on appeal against its own judgment in the same proceedings.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (1)

  • Uganda Development Bank Ltd v Oil Seeds (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1997)

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.

Ham Enterprises Uganda Limited and 2 Others v Katende and Others (Consolidated Suits) (Miscellaneous Application 307 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCD 9 (12 January 2024)
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.