Wakilii

Mukiibi v Sheroba & Another (Miscellaneous Application 47 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 660 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to rectify alleged mathematical error in trial court judgment under slip rule (arising from Civil Appeal No. 108 of 2021, which arose from Mbale Chief Magistrate Court Land Matter No. 051 of 2020)
Decision
Application dismissed; applicant directed to approach the trial court for rectification of alleged errors

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 held that it lacks jurisdiction to rectify an alleged mathematical error in the trial magistrate court's judgment where the error was not raised on appeal and the appellate court did not disturb the trial court's findings. The trial court retains inherent jurisdiction under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to recall and correct its own judgment, and the functus officio rule does not apply to the slip rule. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed; applicant directed to approach the trial court for rectification of alleged errors

Facts

The Applicant was successful in Land Matter No. 051 of 2020 before Mbale Chief Magistrate Court, which ordered that half of the suit land measuring 120 feet by 138 feet be handed over to him. The trial court specified the half as 60 feet by 69 feet. The decision was upheld on appeal in Civil Appeal No. 108 of 2021. The Applicant subsequently brought this application seeking to rectify what he termed a mathematical error, arguing that 60 feet by 69 feet is a quarter not half of the suit land, and that the correct measurement should be 60 feet by 138 feet. The 2nd Respondent opposed, arguing the measurements were correct and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to rectify a trial court judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to rectify an alleged mathematical error in a trial magistrate court judgment under the slip rule when the error was not raised on appeal.
  2. Whether the trial court becomes functus officio after pronouncing final judgment and loses power to correct mathematical errors under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Applicant advised to file the same application before the trial court to correct the mathematical errors in its judgment.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Jurisdiction to Rectify Errors — Appellate Court versus Trial Court
Where an appellate court on appeal has not tampered with the findings of the trial court and no question was raised concerning alleged errors in the trial court judgment, the trial court remains the most appropriate court to correct any such errors under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Functus Officio — Inherent Jurisdiction to Recall Judgment
The functus officio rule does not apply to the slip rule. A court retains inherent jurisdiction under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to recall its own judgment in order to give effect to its manifest intention, notwithstanding that it has pronounced final judgment.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Conditions for Application
A slip order will only be made where the court is satisfied that it is giving effect to the intention of the court at the time judgment was given, or in the case of a matter that was overlooked, where the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the order it would have made had the matter been brought to its attention.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Ranaiga (1965) EA at p.703
  • Goodman Agencies Ltd v Attorney General and Hassa Agencies (K) Ltd (Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2008)
  • Magdeline Makinta V. Fostina Nkwe Court of Appeal No. 26 of 2001
  • Odneste Monanyana V. the State, Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2001 (unreported)
  • Uganda Development Bank Ltd v Oil Sees (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 1997)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mukiibi v Sheroba & Another (Miscellaneous Application 47 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 660 (15 July 2024)
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.