Libyan Arab (U) Bank for Foreign Trade & Development v Vassiliadis (Civil Application 42 of 1992)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Supreme Court refused an application to correct an alleged accidental slip in its earlier judgment and to receive additional evidence after the appeal had been decided. It held that it has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment on its own concluded decision in the same proceedings. Additional evidence under Rule 29(1) may only be taken in the Court's discretion at the hearing of an appeal, before it is decided. The slip rule corrects only clerical errors or accidental omissions to give effect to the Court's manifest intention, not the substantive decision. The inherent-jurisdiction rule addresses fraud and nullity, not new evidence. Application dismissed with costs, with directions to refer the title question to the Registrar of Titles.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs; matter directed to be referred to the Registrar of Titles and thereafter to the Minister for decision on the registered proprietor's status.

Facts

The respondent, Adam Vassiliadis, had sued the applicant bank and another in the High Court for specific performance and damages over land on Plot 152 Rashid Khamis Road, Kampala. He lost at first instance but succeeded on appeal to the Supreme Court, whose judgment of 19 April 1991 found that the name appearing on the Mailo title, without more, did not prove on a balance of probability that the registered proprietor was an African. The applicant bank then applied for additional evidence to be taken and for correction of what it described as an accidental slip, claiming it had belatedly obtained conclusive evidence that the Mailo owner was an African. The respondent objected that the Court had no jurisdiction to reopen its own decision.

Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application to take additional evidence and reverse or reconsider its own final decision in the same case.
2. Whether the alleged error in the judgment was an accidental slip or omission correctable under the slip rule.
3. Whether the Court's inherent jurisdiction permits the receipt of new or additional evidence after an appeal has been decided.

Orders

• Application refused and dismissed with costs.
• The parties to refer the matter to the Registrar of Titles together with any evidence that may assist the Registrar in deciding whether Musoke was or was not an African.
• The Registrar of Titles to then refer the matter to the Minister for his decision.
• A copy of this Ruling and Orders to be forwarded to the Registrar of Titles and the Minister.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Judicature Act s.40 (as amended by Statute No. 12 of 1980)
• Judicature Act s.40(2)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.1(1)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.11
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.29(1)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.42(1) and (2)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.20(1) (slip rule)

Cases cited (4)

• Kawuna v. Lurum Civil Appeal No. [unreadable] Supreme Court, Unreported
• Sewanyana v. Aliker Civil Application No. [unreadable] of 1990 (Unreported)
• Lakhamshi Brothers [...] 66 E.A. 11
• Raniga v Jivraj [1965] EA 700

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Adam Vassiliadis v Libyan Arab (U) Bank For Foreign Trade and Development Limited (Civil Application 28 of 1992)

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