Wakilii

Musendwa v Namalwa (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1819 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCLD 140 · 2021 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment arising from Civil Suit No. 570 of 2012
Decision
Judgment recalled and amended to direct Commissioner to cancel defendant's title and vest it in the plaintiff

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

Held that while the order did not contain an error apparent on the face of the record in the strict sense, the wording did not reflect the court's true intention. The court exercised its discretion to recall and amend the judgment under the principle that where an order is necessary to give effect to what would have been the court's intention had there not been an omission, the court may recall its judgment. The order was amended to direct the Commissioner for Land Registration to cancel the defendant's fraudulent title and vest it in the plaintiff.

Outcome

Judgment recalled and amended to direct Commissioner to cancel defendant's title and vest it in the plaintiff

Facts

The applicant had successfully sued the respondent in Civil Suit No. 570 of 2012 for a declaration that he was the lawful owner of land comprised in Kibuga Block 6, plot 317 at Katwe. The court found that the respondent and her late husband had acted dishonestly and committed fraud against the applicant. Judgment was delivered on 16 September 2020 (with written reasons on 19 August 2020) directing the Commissioner for Land Registration to take necessary corrective action to enable the plaintiff to access the correct title, and awarding general damages of UGX 100,000,000. The Commissioner interpreted the order as only requiring cancellation of the respondent's registration, leaving the land in the names of the respondent's late husband, Sepirya Sengo Kiruruta. The applicant sought review on the ground that the order did not reflect the prayer in the plaint, which had sought cancellation of the defendant's title and vesting of the same in the plaintiff.

Issues

  1. Whether the court's order in Civil Suit No. 570 of 2012 contained an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
  2. Whether the court should exercise its discretion to amend the order to reflect its true intention where the wording does not give the desired effect.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Orders 1, 3, 4 and 5 as issued in Civil Suit No. 570 of 2012 are maintained.
  • The 2nd order in Civil Suit No. 570 of 2012 is replaced with: An order is hereby issued directing the Commissioner, Land Registration to cancel the defendant's title to the suit land comprised in Kibuga Block 6 plot 317 Land at Katwe for fraud and vest the same in the plaintiff.
  • No orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of Judgment — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition and Scope
For an error to constitute a ground for review, it must be apparent on the face of the record, meaning an evident error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. It must be an error so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on record. The error may be one of fact or law.
Review of Judgment — Slip Rule — Court's Discretion to Recall Judgment
Where an order is necessary to give effect to what clearly would have been the court's intention had there not been an omission in relation to a particular matter, the court may exercise its jurisdiction and recall its judgment. A slip order will only be made where the court is fully satisfied that it is giving effect to the intention of the court at the time when judgment was given, or where it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the order which it would have made had the matter been brought to its attention.
Review of Judgment — Distinction Between Error Apparent and Failure to Reflect Intention
An order that does not show an error apparent on the face of the record in the strict sense (clerical or typographical errors) may nevertheless be recalled and amended where the wording does not give the desired effect or reflect the true intention of the court.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • Lakhamshi Brothers Ltd v R. Raja and Sons [1966] EA 313
  • UDB v Oil Seeds (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 15 of 1977)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Musendwa_v_Namalwa_(Civil_Miscellaneous_Application_No._1819_of_2020)_[2021]_UGHCLD_140_(1_October_2021)
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.