Wakilii

Lutta Ronald v Onyonga Simon and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 43 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 406 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of decree arising from dismissal of civil suit for lack of locus standi
Decision
Application for review dismissed but improperly extracted decree set aside and expunged from the record

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 court dismissed the application for review as misconceived but exercised its inherent power under Section 98 and express power under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to set aside and expunge the improperly extracted decree. The court held that where a suit is dismissed for lack of locus standi, no separate decree should be extracted as the ruling itself constitutes the final order. The error was a clerical slip best corrected by amendment rather than review.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed but improperly extracted decree set aside and expunged from the record

Facts

The applicant filed an application seeking review of a decree dated 26th March 2025 in Civil Suit No. 030 of 2024. The underlying suit had been dismissed by ruling delivered on 12th March 2025 for lack of locus standi. Following that ruling, the respondents extracted both an order and a decree, both of which were endorsed by the court. The applicant contended that the extraction of a decree was a clerical error that made his action res judicata. The respondents' counsel conceded that the extraction of a decree was indeed an error, as the court's ruling only dismissed the suit and did not grant any decree capable of extraction in the manner done.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for review should be allowed.
  2. Whether the extraction of a decree following a ruling dismissing a suit for lack of locus standi constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.
  3. Whether the court should exercise its power under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct the clerical error.

Orders

  • The application for review is hereby dismissed.
  • The document titled 'Decree' dated 26th March 2025 and extracted in Civil Suit No. 030 of 2024 is hereby set aside and expunged from the record.
  • The ruling and orders of this court delivered on 12th March 2025 shall stand as the final order in Civil Suit No. 030 of 2024.
  • No separate decree shall be extracted.
  • No orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
For a review to succeed on the basis of an error on the face of the record, the error must be so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on the record.
Civil Procedure — Decrees and Orders — Extraction of Decree — When Decree Should Not Be Extracted
Where a court dismisses a suit for lack of locus standi, the ruling itself constitutes the final order of the court and no separate decree is necessary or should be extracted.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Proceedings — Correction of Clerical Errors — Section 99 Civil Procedure Act
The power to correct accidental slips or omissions under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act is wide and can be exercised at any time. Where the error is not one going to the merits of the decision but a purely administrative or procedural misstep, the remedy lies in correction of the record under Section 99 rather than review under Section 82.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (1)

  • F.X Mubuuke v Uganda Electricity Board (HCMA No. 98 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lutta Ronald v Onyonga Simon and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 43 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 406 (6 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.