Wakilii

Hellen Busingye v Fred Picho Kerali (Miscellaneous Application No. 3396 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 323 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of a ruling correcting a judgment under the slip rule
Decision
Application for review dismissed

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 dismissed an application for review of a ruling that corrected a plot number in a judgment under the slip rule. The correction was proper because the record consistently described the land as Block 243 Plot 569, while the amended plaint erroneously stated Plot 256. The error in the plaint was a drafting mistake that found its way into the judgment. The correction did not materially affect the substance of the adjudicated matter and was within the court's inherent jurisdiction under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed

Facts

The respondent obtained judgment in Civil Suit No. 1236 of 1999 for vacant possession of land described in the judgment as Kyadondo Block 243 Plot 256 at Luzira. When execution was attempted via warrant of eviction, the warrant described the land as Plot 569. The applicant objected, claiming the warrant was illegal because it did not match the judgment. The respondent applied under the slip rule to correct the judgment. Lady Justice Nassuna corrected the plot number from 256 to 569, finding that the amended plaint erroneously stated Plot 256 while all other documents (scheduling notes, trial bundle, submissions, land transfer documents, and certificate of title) consistently described the land as Plot 569. The applicant then sought review of that correction ruling, arguing procedural irregularities and denial of a fair hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has sufficient grounds for review of the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 2777 of 2024.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
For an error to constitute a ground for review, it must be apparent on the face of the record — an evident error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. It must be an error so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on the record.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Court's Inherent Jurisdiction — Correction of Accidental Errors
Under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to correct any accidental slip either on the court's own motion or on application by the parties. For matters of correcting accidental slips and errors, the court has discretion to proceed ex parte since the matter is not in dispute.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Correction Limited to Clerical Errors — Substance Not Affected
Where a judgment contains an erroneous plot number that contradicts the consistent description in all other documents on record (scheduling notes, trial bundle, submissions, and title documents), correction under the slip rule is proper. Such correction is limited to reflecting the correct plot number and does not materially affect the substance of the matter adjudicated.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (5)

  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • Busoga Growers Co-operative Union Ltd v Nsamba & Sons Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 123 of 2000)
  • Dibya Francis v Sseruwagi Anthony & Ors (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 377 of 2023)
  • FX Mubuuke v UEB (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Edward Tyakuma v Safina Matovu (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 624 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hellen_Busingye_v_Fred_Picho_Kerali_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._3396_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_323_(15_October_2025)
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.