Wakilii

Kahoora Enterprises Limited and 3 Others v Modpart Limited and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1455 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 108 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under the slip rule to correct alleged errors in a judgment entered in 2000
Decision
Application dismissed; applicants directed to pursue remedy by way of appeal if they consider the original judgment erroneous

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 dismissed an application under the slip rule to correct a 2000 judgment containing orders for both recovery of a decretal amount and enforcement of power of sale by mortgagee. The court held that the slip rule applies only to accidental clerical or mathematical errors, not substantive errors of law or deliberate judicial decisions. Where a judgment reflects the court's actual intention, even if the decision may be legally erroneous, the proper remedy is appeal, not application of the slip rule.

Outcome

Application dismissed; applicants directed to pursue remedy by way of appeal if they consider the original judgment erroneous

Facts

The applicants obtained a loan from the 3rd respondent bank secured by mortgage. Upon default, the bank took steps to realise the security. The applicants filed suit challenging the process. The suit was dismissed and judgment entered on 16 December 2000 in favour of the bank on its counterclaim, containing orders for recovery of the decretal amount and a declaration permitting enforcement of mortgagee rights. The applicants filed a notice of appeal but took no further steps. Over 20 years later, with enforcement underway, the applicants brought this application under the slip rule seeking correction of the judgment on the basis that orders for fixed decretal recovery and variable recovery through power of sale are mutually exclusive and cannot coexist.

Issues

  1. Whether the judgment contained clerical or mathematical errors susceptible to correction under the slip rule.
  2. Whether orders for recovery of a decretal amount and enforcement of power of sale by mortgagee can coexist in the same judgment.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Scope of Application — Distinction Between Clerical Errors and Substantive Errors
The slip rule under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act applies only to clerical or mathematical mistakes, or errors arising from accidental slip or omission. It does not extend to substantive errors of law or fact, nor to deliberate judicial decisions. The rule enables correction of errors in expression or calculation contained within the decision, not errors going to the reason or intention forming the basis of that decision.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Functus Officio Doctrine — Limits on Court's Power to Vary Judgment
After passing judgment, a court becomes functus officio and cannot vary its judgment except in exceptional circumstances such as fraud, nullity, lack of jurisdiction, or fundamental irregularity. The slip rule does not permit a court to have second thoughts or to introduce into a judgment something that did not form part of the court's intention when the judgment was made.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Proper Remedy for Substantive Errors — Appeal Process
Where a party seeks to challenge substantive aspects of a judgment or where the alleged error goes to the merits of the case, the proper remedy is by way of appeal, not application under the slip rule. The slip rule cannot be used to correct a mistake that is the consequence of a deliberate decision or to enable the court to re-write its judgment.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Three Features — Scope and Limitations
The slip rule has three features: first, it is not directed to pure omissions; second, the slip must be in the nature of a clerical or typographical error in expression or calculation, not an error going to the reason or intention forming the basis of the decision; third, the slip must result from accident or omission, pointing to correction of mistakes in expression rather than changes to the reasoned or intended basis of the decision.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Mellor v Swire (1985) 30 Ch D 239
  • IC v RC [2020] All ER (D) 74
  • Erimiya Serunkuma v Elizabeth Nandyose [1959] EA 127
  • Moore v Buchanan [1967] 1 WLR 1341
  • In Re Inchcape [1942] Ch 394
  • Tak Ming Co Ltd v Yee Sang Metal Supplies Co [1973] 1 WLR 300
  • NKT Cables A/S v SP Power Systems Ltd [2001] All ER (D) 74

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kahoora Enterprises Limited and 3 Others v Modpart Limited and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1455 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 108 (21 February 2022)
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.