Wakilii

Nakafeero Hafiswa v Majara Joseph and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 50 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1094 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to correct clerical error in judgment arising from HCCS No. 01 of 2018
Decision
Judgment corrected to reflect the correct land particulars

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 held that the misdescription of land in the judgment as Block 147 Plot 32 instead of Block 719 Plot 3 was a clerical error correctable under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act. The error arose from an inadvertent slip in the pleadings that extended to submissions and judgment, but the parties' clear intention throughout was to litigate over Block 719 Plot 3. The slip rule applies where correction gives effect to the Court's original intention.

Outcome

Judgment corrected to reflect the correct land particulars

Facts

The Applicant instituted HCCS No. 01 of 2018 seeking revocation of letters of administration and cancellation of title to land described throughout the pleadings, witness statements, and attached certificate of title as Buddu Block 719 Plot 3 land at Seta Masaka measuring 20.2339 hectares. However, the plaint inadvertently also referenced Block 147 Plot 32 land at Lutente. This error carried through to written submissions and into the judgment delivered on 17 May 2024, which ordered cancellation of title to Block 147 Plot 32 instead of Block 719 Plot 3. The misdescription hindered enforcement of the judgment. The Applicant, through her attorney Katusabe Peter, applied to correct the error as a clerical mistake apparent on the face of the record.

Issues

  1. Whether the judgment in HCCS No. 01 of 2018 contained a clerical error in the description of the land subject to the dispute that warranted correction under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Orders

  • "Buddu Block 147 Plot 32 measuring 50 acres" on page 1 of the judgment vide HCCS No. 01 of 2018 is corrected to indicate "Buddu Block 719 Plot 3 land at Seta Masaka".
  • "Buddu Block 147 Plot 32" on page 5 under the orders is corrected to indicate "Buddu Block 719 Plot 3 land at Seta Masaka".
  • No orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Amendment of Judgments — Clerical Errors — Section 99 Civil Procedure Act
Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the court to correct clerical or mathematical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission, at any time either on its own motion or on application by a party.
Civil Procedure — Clerical Errors — Definition and Scope
A clerical error is an error resulting from a minor mistake or inadvertence in writing or copying something on the record, not from judicial reasoning or determination. It must be minor in nature and not go to the root of the decision or affect the substance of the judgment. A substantial mistake of fact or law, or misapplication of law, does not amount to a clerical error.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Conditions for Application
For a court to exercise jurisdiction under the slip rule, the applicant must establish: (a) acknowledgment that there is a clerical, arithmetical mistake or error in the judgment; (b) the error identified is a result of an accidental slip or omission; and (c) the rectification is necessary to give effect to the intention of the court at the time of the judgment.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Judgments — Misdescription of Land — Intention of Parties
Where a misdescription of land in a judgment arose from an inadvertent error in the pleadings that extended to submissions, but the record as a whole clearly shows the parties were litigating over different land and the court's intention was to decide the actual dispute, the error is correctable under Section 99 as a clerical mistake to reflect the true intention of the court.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Seer Robina Matanda and Others v John Nalemu and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 258 of 2020)
  • Kizito Kanonya and 7 Others v Kazito (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 19 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakafeero Hafiswa v Majara Joseph and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 50 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 1094 (7 October 2025)
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.