Wakilii

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

High Court · [2024] UGHC 648 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to correct clerical error in earlier ruling regarding costs order
Decision
Ruling amended to clarify that costs are awarded to the applicants as successful parties in the underlying miscellaneous 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

Held that the slip rule under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act permits correction of clerical errors or accidental slips that contradict the manifest intention of the court. Where a trial judge issued two conflicting costs orders—one awarding costs to the successful party and another requiring each party to bear their own costs—the court invoked the slip rule to give effect to the judge's clear intention. The ruling was adjusted to award costs to the applicants as successful respondents in the underlying application.

Outcome

Ruling amended to clarify that costs are awarded to the applicants as successful parties in the underlying miscellaneous application

Facts

The applicants were successful respondents in Miscellaneous Application No. 340 of 2018, which was dismissed by Justice Tom Chemutai on 13 September 2022. In the ruling, the trial judge issued two conflicting costs orders: first stating 'This Application is hereby dismissed with costs' and then directing 'Each party is to bear its own costs'. Counsel for the applicants could not extract an order containing two contradictory costs directions. The applicants brought the current application seeking correction of the ruling under the slip rule to give effect to the manifest intention to award them costs as successful parties. The respondents did not file a reply or written submissions.

Issues

  1. Whether the court can invoke the slip rule under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct two conflicting costs orders in an earlier ruling.
  2. Whether the trial judge's intention was to award costs to the applicants as successful parties.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 340 of 2018 is adjusted to read: 'This Application is dismissed with costs to the Respondents'.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Application of Section 99 Civil Procedure Act — Correction of Clerical Errors
Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act permits the court to correct clerical or mathematical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission, at any time, either on its own motion or on the application of any party.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Scope and Limitations — Giving Effect to Manifest Intention
The slip rule does not permit a court to alter the substance of a judgment or to add provisions not in the contemplation of the parties or the court at the hearing. It applies only to give effect to the court's manifest intention at the time judgment was given or to correct matters inadvertently omitted which, beyond doubt, the court would have ordered had the matter been brought to its attention.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Conflicting Orders — Correction under Slip Rule
Where a trial judge issues two conflicting costs orders in the same ruling—one awarding costs to the successful party and another requiring each party to bear its own costs—the court may invoke the slip rule to rectify the accidental slip and give effect to the judge's clear intention, which is ordinarily that costs follow the event.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • Obiga Kania v Wadri Kassiano Ezati & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 142 of 2017)
  • Lakhamshi Brothers Limited v R. Raja & Sons [1966] EA 313
  • Katuramu & 49 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 1 of 2016)
  • Kaboora Enterprises & Others v Modpart Limited & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1455 of 2021)
  • the Rainga case (2) [1965] E.A. at P. 703

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 648 (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.