Wakilii

Nantale v Okubiriba (Miscellaneous Application No. 107 of 2019)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 242 · 2021 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under the slip rule to correct judgment in Civil Appeal No. 83 of 2017
Decision
Judgment corrected under slip rule to reflect compensation at current market value rather than original purchase price

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the court, not necessarily the original judicial officer, to correct clerical errors or accidental slips. Where an appellate judge upheld the trial court's order for compensation at current market value but inadvertently stated the alternative refund as the original purchase price, this constituted an accidental slip. The slip rule applies to give effect to the court's manifest intention. Application granted to correct the judgment to provide for compensation at current commercial or market value.

Outcome

Judgment corrected under slip rule to reflect compensation at current market value rather than original purchase price

Facts

The applicant sought correction of the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 83 of 2017 under the slip rule. The trial magistrate in Civil Suit No. 40 of 2015 had ordered the defendant to refund the purchase price of property at the current commercial or market value (not the original purchase price of UGX 5,800,000). On appeal, the High Court upheld the entire judgment and orders of the trial court but then made an alternative order requiring refund of the original purchase price of UGX 5,800,000 plus UGX 2,000,000 damages. The applicant argued this alternative order contradicted the court's stated intention to uphold the trial court's order for compensation at current market value. The respondent had deposited UGX 7,800,000 with the court and opposed the application, arguing there was no slip and that the applicant had never prayed for current market value compensation.

Issues

  1. Whether there is an existent appeal against the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 83 of 2017, which is sought to be corrected under the slip rule provisions
  2. Whether it is mandatory that applications under the slip rule must be heard by the judicial officer who made the judgment sought to be corrected
  3. Whether the application falls within the slip rule provisions and if so whether it should be allowed

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 83 of 2017 adjusted to provide for compensation of the Applicant at the current commercial or market value of the suit property by the 1st Defendant in Civil Suit No. 40 of 2015.
  • All consequential orders of the trial Magistrate upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Section 99 Civil Procedure Act — Power to Correct Judgments
Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the court, not necessarily the judicial officer who made the judgment, to correct clerical or mathematical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slip or omission at any time on its own motion or on application of any party.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Scope of Application — Giving Effect to Court's Manifest Intention
The slip rule applies where the court is asked to give effect to the intention of the court when it gave its judgment or to give effect to what clearly would have been the intention of the court had the matter not inadvertently been omitted. The court will only apply the slip rule where it is fully satisfied that it is giving effect to the intention of the court at the time judgment was given.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Accidental Slip Distinguished from Substantive Error
The slip rule covers genuine slips or omissions in the wording of a sealed court order or handed down judgment made by accident, such as misdescription of a party or incorrect insertion of a date. It cannot be used to correct substantive mistakes or to alter the judgment or orders made earlier.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits by Counsel — Non-Contentious Applications
An affidavit sworn by counsel in support of an application is competent where the application is non-contentious and raises formal questions of law and clerical matters that counsel would have knowledge of, and does not require adducing evidence but rather examination of parts of the judgment or orders sought to be corrected.
Civil Procedure — Court of Appeal — Withdrawal of Appeal — Service Requirements
Under Rule 94(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, an appellant must serve notice of withdrawal on each respondent who has complied with Rule 80. Where a respondent has not served notice of full and sufficient address of service as required by Rule 80, the appellant cannot be faulted for failing to serve the notice of withdrawal.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (5)

  • Fang Min v Dr. Kaijuka Mutabaazi Emmanuel (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2009)
  • Yunusu Ismail T/A Bombo City Store v Alex Kamukamu & Others T/A OK Bazari (1992) 3 KALR 113
  • Lakhamshi Brothers Limited v R. Raja & Sons [1966] EA 313
  • John Sanyu Katuramu and 49 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 1 of 2016)
  • Kasajja Robert v Nasser Iga & Abdu Ngobi (HCT-04-CV-MC-004-2014)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nantale v Okubiriba (Miscellaneous Application No. 107 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCD 242 (18 February 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.