Wakilii

Kagumba & Another v Nandutu & 6 Others (Miscellaneous Application 314 of 2022)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 647 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under the slip rule to correct contradictory costs orders in an earlier ruling
Decision
Contradictory costs orders in the earlier ruling corrected to award costs to the applicants (as successful respondents in the underlying application)

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 High Court granted the application under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct contradictory costs orders in an earlier ruling. Where a ruling contained two conflicting orders—one dismissing the application with costs to the successful party, and another ordering each party to bear its own costs—the court applied the slip rule to give effect to the manifest intention. The order 'application dismissed with costs' was held to reflect the true intention that the successful respondents (applicants in the slip application) should recover costs from the unsuccessful applicants (respondents in the slip application).

Outcome

Contradictory costs orders in the earlier ruling corrected to award costs to the applicants (as successful respondents in the underlying application)

Facts

Joel Kagumba and Nanyoga Proscovia Kabanda were successful respondents in Miscellaneous Application No. 340 of 2018, which was dismissed by Justice Tom Chemutai on 13 September 2022. The ruling contained two contradictory costs orders: 'This Application is hereby dismissed with costs' and 'Each party is to bear its own costs'. The applicants' counsel could not extract a single coherent order due to the contradiction. The applicants contended that the first order reflected the judge's true intention to award them costs as the successful party, and that the second order was an inadvertent slip. They brought this application under the slip rule to rectify the contradiction.

Issues

  1. Whether the court has jurisdiction under the slip rule to correct contradictory costs orders in a ruling.
  2. Whether the contradictory costs orders constituted an accidental slip or omission.
  3. Which of the two conflicting costs orders represented the true intention of the trial judge.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Ruling of Justice Tom Chemutai in Miscellaneous Application No. 340 of 2018 adjusted to read: 'This Application is dismissed with costs to the Respondents'.
  • Order that 'Each party should bear its own costs' struck out.

Rules and key headnotes

Slip Rule — Scope of Application — Correction of Contradictory Costs Orders
Under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, the slip rule permits correction of clerical errors, mathematical mistakes, or errors arising from accidental slip or omission in judgments, decrees, or orders. The rule is applicable to give effect to the court's manifest intention at the time of making the order, and may be invoked where two contradictory costs orders were issued and one order clearly represents an inadvertent slip inconsistent with the true intention evidenced by the operative order.
Slip Rule — Limits — Substantive Amendments and Appeal
The slip rule does not permit a court to alter its judgment or add provisions having substantive effect that were not in the contemplation of the parties or the court at the hearing. It applies only to genuine slips or omissions in the wording of a judgment made by accident, such as misdescription of a party or incorrect insertion of a date. Substantive errors can only be corrected through the appeal process.
Costs — Interpretation of Contradictory Orders — Intention of Court
Where a ruling dismisses an application 'with costs' and subsequently states that 'each party is to bear its own costs', the operative order dismissing the application with costs reflects the court's true intention that the successful party recover costs, and the second order constitutes an accidental slip to be corrected under the slip rule.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

  • Hon Obiga Kania v Wadri Kassiano Ezati & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 142 of 2017)
  • Lakhamshi Brothers Limited v R. Raja & Sons [1966] EA 313
  • John Sanyu Katuramu and 49 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 1 of 2016)
  • Kaboora Enterprises & Others v Modpart Limited & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1455 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kagumba & Another v Nandutu & 6 Others (Miscellaneous Application 314 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 647 (5 July 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.