Wakilii

Musoke v Ggingo (Miscellaneous Application 114 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 371 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for rectification of bill of costs arising from a taxation appeal
Decision
Application granted with rectification of bill of costs

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 has jurisdiction under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to rectify mathematical errors and accidental slips in orders to give effect to the Court's true intention. The Court found that the Deputy Registrar made mathematical errors in totaling the taxed costs, and that items 109 to 122 should all be varied to UGX 70,000/= each. The rectified total was set at UGX 13,851,194/= instead of the previously quoted UGX 23,244,256/=.

Outcome

Application granted with rectification of bill of costs

Facts

The Applicant sought rectification of a bill of costs totaled at UGX 23,244,256/= following a taxation appeal. The Deputy Registrar had totaled the costs pursuant to orders by an Appellate Judge who had struck out certain items and varied others. The Applicant contended that mathematical errors had been made in the totaling. The Respondent argued that the totaling was done in the presence of both parties and that the Applicant had conceded to the amount and made part payments including a consent settlement of UGX 4,000,000/=. The Court examined the bill of costs and the Appellate Judge's ruling, finding that mathematical errors had indeed occurred and that the totaled amount had increased despite items being struck out on appeal, which was illogical.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to rectify mathematical errors in a bill of costs totaled by the Deputy Registrar.
  2. Whether the total sum of UGX 23,244,256/= should be rectified to reflect the correct amount following the Appellate Judge's instructions.
  3. Whether items 109 to 122 should all be varied to UGX 70,000/= each to reflect the true intention of the Court.

Orders

  • The ruling in HCMA No. 02 of 2018 is hereby rectified to reflect UGX 70,000/= as the taxed and allowed costs for items 109 to 122.
  • The rectified total stands at UGX 13,851,194/= less the UGX 4,000,000/= already settled, bringing the amount outstanding to UGX 9,851,194/=.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Rectification of Orders — Slip Rule — Jurisdiction to Correct Mathematical Errors
The Court has jurisdiction under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct mathematical errors or mistakes in judgments and orders, or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission, where the correction is intended to give effect to the Court's intention at the point of delivery of the judgment.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Conditions for Application
The Court will apply the slip rule where it is satisfied that it is giving effect to the intention of the Court at the time when the judgment was given, or in the case of a matter that was overlooked, the Court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the order which it would have made had the matter been brought to its attention.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Rectification Where Deputy Registrar's Total Illogical
Where a Deputy Registrar's total of taxed costs increases from the initial costs allowed despite items being struck out on appeal, this is illogical and indicates mathematical error warranting rectification under the slip rule.
Statutory Interpretation — Construction of Court Orders — Rectification to Give Effect to True Intention
Where a Court has varied certain items in a series of identical items without distinguishing factors between them, and the variation appears to apply to only some items due to accidental slip, the Court may rectify the order to apply the variation to all items in the series to reflect the true intention.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Obiga Kania v Wadri Kassiano and Another (HCMA No. 142 of 2017)
  • Orient Bank v Fredrick Zabwe and Another (Civil Application No. 17 of 2007)
  • Rosie Naikoba v National Medical Stores (COA Miscellaneous Application No. 366 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Musoke v Ggingo (Miscellaneous Application 114 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 371 (31 May 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.