Wakilii

Lutaaya Alamanzant v Hajji Isahaka Nsisinkano and Another [2026] UGHC 297

High Court · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of ruling arising from Civil Suit No. 0057 of 2022
Decision
Court reviewed its earlier ruling and awarded costs of the withdrawn counterclaim to the applicant

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The High Court granted an application for review where it had inadvertently omitted to pronounce itself on costs of a withdrawn counterclaim. The court held that the omission to award costs upon withdrawal of the counterclaim constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. The court reviewed its earlier ruling and ordered the 3rd defendant/counterclaimant to pay costs of the counterclaim to the 1st defendant/2nd counter defendant.

Outcome

Court reviewed its earlier ruling and awarded costs of the withdrawn counterclaim to the applicant

Facts

The applicant was the 1st defendant/2nd counter defendant in Civil Suit No. 0057 of 2022. The parties entered a consent order to withdraw both the main suit and the underlying counterclaim without costs. The applicant objected to the withdrawal without costs and made oral submissions seeking costs for both the head suit and the counterclaim. The court delivered a ruling addressing costs of the head suit but inadvertently omitted to pronounce itself on costs of the counterclaim withdrawn by the 2nd respondent. The applicant brought this application seeking review of that ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether this application satisfies the grounds for review.
  2. What remedies are available.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • The ruling and orders from HCT-17-LD-CS-0057-2022 dated 8th December 2025 are reviewed.
  • The orders made therein are maintained save that the 3rd defendant/counterclaimant (2nd respondent) shall pay the costs on the counterclaim to the 1st defendant/2nd counter defendant (applicant).
  • Costs of this application to be paid by the 2nd respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error apparent on the face of the record is one that is patent and self-evident, which can be located without elaborate argument and without scope for controversy, and which stares at the face at a glance. Such error is not limited to errors of fact but includes obvious errors of law.
Civil Procedure — Review — Jurisdiction and Discretion — Rectification of Errors
The court has discretionary powers to review its own orders especially where new facts arise that were not available at the time of making the decision or an error is apparent on the court record. This power is derived from Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules and is exercised to ensure that substantive justice is administered without undue regard to technicalities.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Withdrawal of Counterclaim — Omission to Award Costs
Where a court addresses costs for withdrawal of the main suit but inadvertently omits to provide for costs for the withdrawal of a counterclaim despite submissions having been made on both issues, such omission constitutes an error on the record which can be rectified by way of review of the court's own orders.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (3)

  • Abdul Jafar Devji v Ali RMS Devji (1958) EA 558
  • FX Mubwike v UEB (HCMA No. 98 of 2005)
  • Batuk K Vyas v Surat Municipality AIR (1953) Bom 133

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lutaaya Alamanzant v Hajji Isahaka Nsisinkano and Another 2026 UGHC 297 (31 March 2026)
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.