Wakilii

Nangale and Others v Attorney General of Kenya and Others (Application no.2 of 2006 (Arising from Reference no.1 of 2006))

East African Court of Justice · [2006] EACJ 2 · 2006 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to correct an extracted court order to correspond with the court's ruling
Decision
Extracted order corrected to correspond with the court's ruling

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 an extracted order that does not correspond with the ruling it purports to embody must be corrected under rule 68(2) of the Court Rules. The extracted order contained wording not present in the ruling, creating variance between the two. The Court exercised its discretion to correct the order to match the terms of the relief granted in the original ruling.

Outcome

Extracted order corrected to correspond with the court's ruling

Facts

On 27 November 2006, the Court delivered a ruling granting an interim injunction. The Registrar extracted and signed an order embodying the injunction pursuant to rule 67 of the Court Rules. George Nangale, a member of the East African Legislative Assembly representing Tanzania, applied under rule 68(2) for correction of the extracted order, contending it was wider than the ruling and had paralysed all EALA activities. The Clerk to the EALA had suspended EALA activities based on the extracted order. The applicant argued the extracted order contained wording not present in the ruling, giving it an erroneously wider scope. The claimants and respondents opposed, arguing the order embodied the ruling and was not wider than it.

Issues

  1. Whether the extracted order should be corrected to correspond with the court's ruling under rule 68(2) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure.
  2. Whether the extracted order was wider than the ruling it purported to embody.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The extracted order is to be corrected to correspond and be in the terms of the reliefs granted in the ruling dated 27th November 2006.
  • No orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Court Orders — Correction of Extracted Orders — Rule 68(2) East African Court of Justice Rules
An extracted order must embody the decision of the Court as stated in the ruling, not the pleadings or prayers of the parties, and must correspond with the judgment it purports to embody in compliance with rule 67 of the Court Rules.
Civil Procedure — Court Orders — Discretionary Power to Correct Orders
The Court has discretionary power under rule 68(2) to correct an order that does not correspond with the judgment it purports to embody, and may refuse correction where something has intervened subsequently which renders it inexpedient or inequitable to make the correction.
Civil Procedure — Court Orders — Requirements for Extracted Orders — Rule 67
Rule 67 requires every decision of the Court to be embodied in an order which must be dated as of the date the decision was delivered, contain particulars of the case, and specify clearly the relief granted or other determination of the case.

Legislation cited (3)

  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure r.67
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure r.68(1)
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure r.68(2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Moore v Buchanan and Another (1967) 3 All ER 273

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nangale and Others v Attorney General of Kenya and Others (Application no.2 of 2006 (Arising from Reference no.1 of 2006)) [2006] EACJ 2 (27 November 2006)
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.