Wakilii

Isikwize v Baguma (Civil Suit 22 of 2019)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 136 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by 1st Defendant to correct clerical error in suit number in previous ruling
Decision
Application granted; clerical error in suit number corrected

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 Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act permits correction of clerical or mathematical errors at any time on application or the court's own motion. The misquoted suit number (Land Civil Suit No. 37 of 2014 instead of the correct No. 22 of 2019) in the ruling of 27 February 2023 was an accidental slip rectifiable under the slip rule, and the ruling was recalled to correct the error.

Outcome

Application granted; clerical error in suit number corrected

Facts

The suit was originally filed in the Land Division of the High Court at Kampala as Civil Suit No. 327 of 2014. It was transferred to the High Court at Fort Portal in 2019 and registered as Land Civil Suit No. 22 of 2019 on 7 June 2019. On 27 February 2023, the court dismissed the suit under Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules for want of prosecution. However, in that ruling the judge inadvertently referred to the suit as Land Civil Suit No. 37 of 2014 instead of the correct number, Land Civil Suit No. 22 of 2019. The 1st Defendant's advocates applied by letter dated 24 January 2024 for correction of the error under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the court may correct a clerical error in the suit number stated in a previous ruling under the slip rule.

Orders

  • The ruling delivered on 27 February 2023 is recalled to correct the suit number from Land Civil Suit No. 37 of 2014 to Land Civil Suit No. 22 of 2019.
  • The suit dismissed on 27 February 2023 under Order 17 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules is confirmed to be Land Civil Suit No. 22 of 2019.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Correction of Clerical Errors in Judgments and Orders
Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the court to correct clerical or mathematical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors arising from accidental slip or omission, at any time either on the court's own motion or on application by any party.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Principles of Application
A slip order will only be made where the court is fully satisfied that it is giving effect to the intention of the court at the time judgment was given, or in the case of an overlooked matter, where it is satisfied beyond doubt as to the order it would have made had the matter been brought to its attention. The court cannot review or alter its ruling under the slip rule but should only rectify evident errors on the surface of the judgment, provided the correction does not grant the court jurisdiction to act as an appellate body or substantially modify its own decision.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Vallabhadas Karsandas Raniga v Mansuklal Jivraj and Others [1965] EA 780
  • Orient Bank v Frederick Zaabwe and Another (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 17 of 2007)
  • Supreme Court Petition No. 26 of 2019, Monica WanguWamwere& 5 Others vs. Attorney General (Supreme Court of Kenya)
  • Uganda Development Bank Ltd v Oil Sees (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 1997)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Isikwize v Baguma (Civil Suit 22 of 2019) [2025] UGHC 136 (28 February 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.