Jamal & 2 Others v Uganda Oxygen Limited & 2 Others (Civil Application 13 of 1997)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

On an application to recall and correct its earlier judgment under the slip rule (Supreme Court Rules r.34 and the court's inherent jurisdiction), the court held that the slip rule operates only to give effect to the court's true intention at the time judgment was given, in circumscribed circumstances. The order granting the respondents costs of the suit in the court below was an accidental slip, because the court had directed that the proceedings below resume; those costs should abide the outcome of the re-hearing. The applicants were already entitled to a fraction of the costs on appeal, so no error existed there. Orders (c) and (d) were clarified, not substantively altered, to convey the court's intention. The application was allowed only in part.

Outcome

Application to correct the judgment allowed in part; costs order and orders (c) and (d) corrected and clarified.

Facts

The applicants had been appellants in Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1996, arising from a High Court suit in which Shamji sued the Jamal brothers and Shabir Abji over alleged frauds causing financial losses to Uganda Oxygen Ltd, a company acquired through Oxyco Holdings Ltd. The trial judge found fraud, added Uganda Oxygen Ltd as a fourth defendant late in the proceedings, and entered judgment. On appeal, the Supreme Court allowed one ground (the late joinder without affording an opportunity to amend pleadings), set aside the trial orders, and substituted orders directing amendment of the plaint and restriction of further proceedings to quantum of liability, while awarding the respondents five-sixths of the costs of the appeal and of the suit below. The applicants then sought correction of the costs order and of orders (c) and (d), contending the court could not have intended to award the respondents costs below after directing the matter to resume there.

Issues

1. Whether the order granting the respondents costs of the suit in the court below should be corrected under the slip rule given that the court had ordered the proceedings below to resume.
2. Whether the court had failed to award the applicants partial costs of the appeal.
3. Whether orders (c) and (d) concerning the proved fraud and the restriction of the proceedings to quantum of liability contained errors or slips requiring correction.

Orders

• The words "and of the suit in the court below" in the judgment of Oder JSC are deleted and substituted with words providing that the costs in the lower court shall abide the outcome of the re-hearing.
• Order (c) substituted: the issue of fraud by the three appellants against Uganda Oxygen Ltd, having been proved and affirmed on appeal, should not form an issue in the proceedings below.
• Order (d) substituted: the proceedings in the lower court should be restricted only to the issue of quantum of liability by the three appellants (as defendants) in favour of Uganda Oxygen Ltd.
• The application is allowed only in part.
• The applicants shall have half of the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Supreme Court Rules 1996 r.1(3)
• Supreme Court Rules 1996 r.34
• Supreme Court Rules 1996 r.41
• Civil Procedure Rules Order I r.10(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order I r.10(4)

Cases cited (4)

• Vallabhdas Karsandas Raniga v Mashukhlal Jivraj & Others [1965] E.A. 700
• Lakhamshi Brothers Ltd v R. Raja & Sons [1966] E.A. 313
• Zaituna Kawuma v George Mira (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1997)
• Adam Vassiliadis v Libyan Arab Bank for Foreign Trade and Development Ltd (Civil Application No. 28 of 1992)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

• Orient Bank Limited v Zaabwe and Another (Civil Application 19 of 2007)
• National Housing & Construction Corporation v Kampala District Land Board & Anor [2007] UGSC 2
• Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust v General Parts (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2000)

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