Wakilii

John Kafeero Sentongo v Peterson Sozi (Civil Application No. O 173 of 2012)

Court of Appeal · [2021] UGCA 223 · 2021 Application Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to recall and correct the Court of Appeal's judgment under the slip rule and the court's inherent powers
Decision
Application allowed; judgment corrected to include orders for eviction and permanent injunction; claim for general damages declined

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

On an application to correct its earlier judgment, the Court of Appeal held that its power to recall a judgment extends beyond the slip rule to its inherent powers, but only to give effect to what would clearly have been its intention had a matter not been overlooked. Having declared the applicant the lawful owner of the suit land, the court found it had inadvertently omitted to grant vacant possession. The application was allowed and orders for eviction and a permanent injunction were added. However, the court declined to award general damages, as quantum requires evidence and cannot be assessed on such an application; that was not a mere correction of an error.

Outcome

Application allowed; judgment corrected to include orders for eviction and permanent injunction; claim for general damages declined

Facts

The applicant had succeeded in Civil Appeal No. 173 of 2012, in which the Court of Appeal declared that the suit land comprised in Plot 1011, Kyadondo Block 273 belonged to him and awarded costs of the appeal and the lower courts. The applicant had originally sought, in the Chief Magistrate's Court, an eviction order, a permanent injunction, general damages and interest. The court's judgment omitted to make those further orders. The applicant, unable to gain access to the property despite the declaration of ownership, applied to have the judgment recalled and corrected to include the omitted orders, contending they were incidental and consequential to the finding of ownership. The respondent opposed, arguing that the eviction orders sought did not flow from the determination and that the application went beyond correction of clerical mistakes.

Issues

  1. Whether the court's earlier judgment could be recalled and corrected under the slip rule and inherent powers to include orders for eviction and a permanent injunction.
  2. Whether the applicant was entitled to general damages by way of correction of the judgment.

Orders

  • Application allowed under Rule 36 of the rules of the court and judgment adjusted accordingly.
  • An order for eviction of the respondent and/or his agents from the suit land.
  • A permanent injunction to restrain the respondent and/or his agents from entering and/or occupying the suit land.
  • Each party to bear its own costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule and Inherent Powers — Recall and Correction of Judgment
A court's power to recall and correct its judgment is not limited to the slip rule but extends to its inherent powers under the rules; however, such power may be exercised only to give effect to what would clearly have been the court's intention had the omitted matter not been overlooked.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Limits of the Power to Recall
A slip order will only be made where the court is fully satisfied it is giving effect to its intention at the time judgment was given, and cannot be used to invite the court to sit on its own previous judgment, given the principle that there must be an end to litigation.
Land & Property — Declaration of Ownership — Vacant Possession as Consequential Order
Where a court declares a party the lawful owner of land, an order for vacant possession is incidental and consequential to that finding, and its omission may be corrected as a mistake on the face of the record giving effect to the court's manifest intention.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Not Assessable on Slip Rule Application
General damages cannot be awarded by way of correction of a judgment under the slip rule, as their quantum must be determined on evidence and such assessment is not available at the appellate stage where no evidence has been adduced.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.36(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.36(2)

Cases cited (8)

  • Elizabeth Nalumansi Wamala v Jolly Kasande and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 29 of 2017)
  • David Muhenda v Humphrey Mirembe (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2012)
  • Livingstone Sewanyana v Martin Aliker (Miscellaneous Application No. 40 of 1991)
  • Nsereko Joseph Kisukye v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2012)
  • Orient Bank Ltd v Fredrick Zaabwe and Another (Civil Application No. 17 of 2007)
  • Lakhamshi Brothers Ltd v R. Raja and Sons [1966] EA 313
  • Fangmin v Dr. Kaijuka Mutabazi Emmanuel (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2009)
  • UDB v Oil Seeds (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 15 of 1977)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

John Kafeero Sentongo v Peterson Sozi (Civil Application No. O 173 of 2012) [2021] UGCA 223 (1 January 2021)
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.