Wakilii

Mulungi v Don Uganda Limited & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 3038 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 276 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of Assistant Registrar's orders and amended ruling relating to receivership and interim injunction
Decision
Review granted; impugned orders set aside; status quo ante restored pending main injunction hearing

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Held that the Assistant Registrar committed errors apparent on the face of the record by recalling her administrative order without hearing the parties, violating natural justice principles, and by amending her ruling to revive lapsed orders outside the scope of the slip rule in contravention of the functus officio doctrine. The recall order of 1st December 2023 and the substantive amendments in the amended ruling of 11th December 2023 were set aside. Status quo ante restored pending determination of the main temporary injunction application.

Outcome

Review granted; impugned orders set aside; status quo ante restored pending main injunction hearing

Facts

The Applicant filed a civil suit and application for temporary injunction challenging the mortgage of family properties. The Assistant Registrar initially granted an administrative order maintaining the status quo pending a ruling. Hours later, she recalled that order without hearing the parties and issued a second order permitting the 3rd Respondent to place the 1st Respondent under receivership. On 8th December 2023, the Assistant Registrar delivered a ruling conditionally granting an interim injunction and lapsing all administrative orders of 1st December 2023. On 11th December 2023, she issued an amended ruling correcting typographical errors and saving the receivership order from the lapsed 1st December orders. The Applicant challenged both the recall order and the amended ruling as jurisdictional errors.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has locus standi to bring an application for review of orders placing the 1st Respondent under receivership.
  2. Whether the application raises grounds for review of the Assistant Registrar's orders and amended ruling.
  3. Whether the Assistant Registrar acted without jurisdiction in recalling her administrative order of 1st December 2023 without hearing the parties.
  4. Whether the Assistant Registrar acted within the scope of the slip rule in issuing the amended ruling of 11th December 2023.

Orders

  • The application for review is granted.
  • The Learned Assistant Registrar's Recall Order dated 1st December 2023 directing the 3rd Respondent to place the 1st Respondent under Receivership is set aside.
  • The Amended Ruling and Orders of the Learned Assistant Registrar of 11th December 2023 with regard to the second and third corrections/amendments is set aside.
  • The status quo ante that existed at the time of filing of the Application for Interim order is maintained pending the determination of the main Application for temporary injunction.
  • The pending application for the temporary injunction is to be heard by the Deputy Registrar.
  • The costs of this application will abide the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Review Jurisdiction — High Court Judge versus Registrar
The review jurisdiction under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules is vested only in a Judge of the High Court and not in the Registrar. The power to review judgments or orders of the High Court, including those entered by the Registrar, is not among the powers delegated to the Registrar.
Review — Error Apparent on the Face of the Record — Natural Justice
An error apparent on the face of the record includes circumstances where the court has recalled an order and changed the status quo without affording the affected party an opportunity to be heard, constituting a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Locus Standi — Shareholder Challenging Receivership
The question of whether a shareholder and director has locus standi to challenge orders affecting the company's receivership on grounds of fraud and forgery of her signature is a matter going to the merits of the main suit and not determinable at the interlocutory stage of reviewing an interim order.
Amendment of Judgments — Slip Rule — Scope and Limits
Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act permits correction of clerical or mathematical mistakes and accidental slips or omissions. The slip rule applies only to give effect to the court's original intention at the time of making the order, not to introduce substantive changes or add provisions not contemplated by the parties or the court at the hearing. Substantive errors can only be corrected through the appeal process.
Functus Officio — Amending Ruling to Revive Lapsed Orders
Once a court has delivered a ruling lapsing certain orders, the court is functus officio and has no jurisdiction to subsequently amend the ruling to save or revive those lapsed orders. Such an amendment falls outside the scope of the slip rule and constitutes a substantive change requiring correction through appeal.
Interim Orders — Purpose of Maintaining Status Quo
The role of interim orders is to preserve the status quo ante, meaning the situation that existed before the events in dispute occurred, so as to allow for the determination of the issues in contention between the parties.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (10)

  • Fakrudin and Another v Kampala District Land Board and Another (Civil Suit No. 570 of 2015)
  • Allied Bank International v Sadru Kara and Abdul Kara (Civil Suit No. 191 of 2002)
  • Attorney General & Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga & James Kamala (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • MK Financiers Limited v N.Shah & Co. Ltd and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 425 of 2017)
  • Ojijo Pascal v Eseza Catherine Byakika (Miscellaneous Application No. 1028 of 2020)
  • John Imaniraguha v Uganda Revenue Authority & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 2770 of 2023)
  • Farm Inputs Care Centre Limited v Klein Karoo Seeds Marketing (PTY) Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 0861 of 2021)
  • Kahoora Enterprises Limited and 3 Others v Modpart Limited and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1455 of 2021)
  • Uganda Railways Corporation v Ekwaru D.O and 1330 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2019)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo & 2 Others v Attorney General & 4 Others (Constitutional Application No. 4 of 2014)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mulungi v Don Uganda Limited & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 3038 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 276 (22 December 2023)
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.