Wakilii

Kate Nakatumba Kiwala Tamale v Sam Kiwanuka Walusimbi (Civil Application No. 257 of 2025)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 366 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal to correct an alleged error and an omission as to costs in a prior ruling (Civil Application No. 566 of 2024) under the slip rule.
Decision
Application partly allowed: correction sought as to the impugned statement refused; omission as to costs corrected so that costs of Civil Application No. 566 of 2024 abide the outcome of the appeal.

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 a prior single-Justice ruling, the Court held that the impugned statement (that the order of the lower court had been fully complied with) was not made in error, so the slip rule and related provisions did not apply; the applicant's recourse against a single Justice's decision lay under section 12(2) of the Judicature Act, by referring the matter to a bench of three Justices. That part of the application was rejected. However, the omission to provide for costs in the earlier ruling was an accidental, erroneous omission properly correctable, and the Court ordered that costs of Civil Application No. 566 of 2024 abide the outcome of the appeal. The application was therefore partly allowed.

Outcome

Application partly allowed: correction sought as to the impugned statement refused; omission as to costs corrected so that costs of Civil Application No. 566 of 2024 abide the outcome of the appeal.

Facts

The applicant had filed an application seeking to correct the single-Justice ruling delivered in Civil Application No. 566 of 2024 (Sam Kiwanuka Walusimbi v Kate Nakatumba Kiwala Tamale). She sought two corrections: first, removal of a statement in that ruling to the effect that it was on record the applicant had already complied with the conditions complained of, meaning the order granted by the lower court had been fully complied with, which she contended was made in error; and second, correction of the omission to make provision for costs in that ruling. The application invoked the inherent powers of the court, the rule governing settlement of the form of orders, and the slip rule for correction of accidental slips or omissions.

Issues

  1. Whether the impugned statement in the ruling in Civil Application No. 566 of 2024 was made in error and could be removed under the slip rule.
  2. Whether the omission to provide for costs in the earlier ruling could be corrected under the slip rule.

Orders

  • The aspect of the application seeking removal of the cited statement is rejected; the applicant is advised to proceed under section 12(2) of the Judicature Act.
  • In respect of the ruling in Civil Application No. 566 of 2024: costs shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
  • Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Correction of Errors — Scope of Rule 36(1) Court of Appeal Rules
The slip rule permits correction only of a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission; it cannot be used to remove or alter a deliberate substantive statement in a ruling that was not made in error.
Civil Procedure — Court of Appeal — Recourse Against Decision of a Single Justice
A person dissatisfied with the decision of a single Justice of the Court of Appeal must have the matter determined by a bench of three Justices under section 12(2) of the Judicature Act, rather than seeking correction of the ruling under the slip rule.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Omission to Provide for Costs
The accidental omission to provide for costs in a ruling is an error correctable under the slip rule, and the court may supply the missing costs order to give effect to its intention.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.35(2)(c)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.36(1)
  • Judicature Act s.12(2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kate Nakatumba Kiwala Tamale v Sam Kiwanuka Walusimbi (Civil Application No. 257 of 2025) [2025] UGCA 366 (6 November 2025)
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.