Nakubulwa and 2 Others v Lubowa (Miscellaneous Appeal 620 of 2021)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Held that once a Deputy Registrar enters an order of abatement, she becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to subsequently correct or vary that order substantively by way of a letter ruling. The doctrine of functus officio provides finality; any challenge to an abatement order must be taken by way of formal appeal under Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The slip rule under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act applies only to clerical or mathematical mistakes or accidental slips, not to substantive errors. The order reinstating the abated suit was set aside as an illegality.

Outcome

The abatement order of Civil Suit No. 147 of 2021 stands; the Deputy Registrar's order reinstating the suit is set aside

Facts

The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 147 of 2021 against the appellants. Summons and plaint were served on 28 May 2021. The appellants filed their written statement of defence on 4 August 2021, out of time. The appellants subsequently filed Miscellaneous Application No. 480 of 2021 seeking extension of time to file their defence. The respondent filed Miscellaneous Application No. 483 of 2021 for a temporary injunction. Both applications were fixed for hearing on 29 September 2021. On 14 September 2021, the Deputy Registrar entered an order of abatement on the basis that the respondent had failed to file summons for directions within 28 days of the last reply as required by Order XIA rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2019. The respondent's counsel complained to the Deputy Registrar. On 6 October 2021, the Deputy Registrar issued a ruling by letter stating that the abatement order was issued in error because summons for directions had been filed on 27 August 2021 and two miscellaneous applications were pending. She corrected the error and fixed the applications for hearing. The appellants appealed against this correction.

Issues

1. Whether the learned Deputy Registrar, having entered an order of abatement of Civil Suit No. 147 of 2021 on 14 September 2021, became functus officio and thereby lacked authority to make a subsequent order correcting an error with regard to the order of abatement.
2. Whether the learned Deputy Registrar erred in law and in fact by setting aside an order of court whilst functus officio and in the absence of a formal application before the court.
3. Whether the procedure adopted by the learned Deputy Registrar to correct or set aside a court order was irregular, illegal and improper.

Orders

• The order of abatement of HCCS No. 0147/2021 was properly entered and stands.
• The order of the Learned Deputy Registrar reinstating HCCS No. 0147/2021 is hereby set aside.
• Each party shall bear their costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (19)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 50 rule 8
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rules 1 & 3
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Act s.99
• Civil Procedure Act s.100
• Civil Procedure Rules Order XIA rule 1(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order XIA rule 1(6)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order XIA rule 6
• Civil Procedure Rules Order XIA rule 7(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 50 rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 50 rule 6
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 1(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 28
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 rule 12
• Judicature Act s.33
• Evidence Act s.101(1)
• Evidence Act s.133
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)(e)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 139

Cases cited (20)

• Goodman Agencies Ltd v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2008)
• Magdeline Makinta Vs. Fostina Nkwe, Court of Appeal No.26/2001
• Odneste Monanyana Vs. The State, Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2001 (unreported)
• Reconciling Gospel Worldwide Ltd and 3 Others v Douglas Atalyeba and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 264 of 2015)
• Kalokola Kaloli v Nduga Robert (Miscellaneous Application No. 497 of 2014)
• Edison Kanyabwere v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2004)
• Uganda Telecom Ltd v Zte Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
• Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
• Makula International Vs. His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga (1982 HCB 11)
• Banco Arabe Espanol v. Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 22
• Erias Sewava Ssalongo & 18 Others Vs. Richard Male Mukasa & 2 Others R.C No.34/2018
• George William Katatumba and Others v Abarihamwe Livestock Cooperative Society Ltd and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 2021)
• Namutebi Matilda v Ssemanda Simon and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 430 of 2021)
• Jersey Evening Post Limited vs. Ai Thani [2002] JLR 542
• Transtrac Limited v Damco Logistics Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 348 of 2012)
• Uganda Development Bank Ltd v Oil Sees (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 1997)
• Raniga Vallabhadas Karsandas V. Mansukhlal Jirraj [1965] EA 700
• Attorney General and Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
• Suryakant Manibhai Patel v Gume Fred Ngobi (High Court Civil Suit No. 98 of 2017)
• Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 52 of 1995)

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.

• Nakubulwa and 2 Others v Kagere (Miscellaneous Application 190 of 2022)

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