Wakilii

Okwana v Oonyu (Miscellaneous Application 116 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 226 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct clerical error in judgment
Decision
Clerical error corrected; judgments of both courts adjusted to reflect correct plot number as pleaded

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 applied the slip rule under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct a clerical error in both the trial and appellate judgments. The court found that the judgments mistakenly referred to Plot 14 Block C Market Street when the pleadings, evidence, and manifest intention of the court concerned Plot 41 Block C Market Street. The application was allowed and the judgments corrected accordingly.

Outcome

Clerical error corrected; judgments of both courts adjusted to reflect correct plot number as pleaded

Facts

The applicant successfully appealed Civil Suit No. 31 of 2011 concerning land ownership. Both the trial magistrate's judgment of 13 October 2016 and the High Court appellate judgment of 24 November 2021 mistakenly described the suit land as Plot 14 Block C Market Street, Ngora Town Council. However, the amended plaint dated 16 August 2013, the plaintiff's testimony, the agreement of sale (exhibit PE1), and portions of the appellate judgment itself all consistently referred to Plot 41 Block C Market Street. The applicant filed this application under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act seeking correction of the clerical error. The respondent opposed the application, alleging fraud and claiming the suit concerned Plot 14, not Plot 41. The court examined the entire record including pleadings, evidence, and the lower court file.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a clerical error or arithmetic mistake in the judgement of the High Court and the lower court
  2. What are the remedies available to the parties

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Judgment of this court and the lower court adjusted to replace 'Plot 14, Block C Market Street Ngora Town Council' with 'Plot 41, Block C Market Street Ngora Town Council'.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Section 99 Civil Procedure Act — Correction of Clerical Errors
The slip rule under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act allows 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 of any party.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Scope and Limits — Manifest Intention of the Court
The slip rule does not allow the court to alter the substance of a judgment or make orders that were not originally intended. 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 when judgment was given, or where it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the order which it would have made had the matter been brought to its attention.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Distinguishing Clerical from Substantive Errors
The slip rule is for the purpose of correcting clerical errors and giving effect to the judgment of the court, not for correcting substantive mistakes of law. Any substantive mistake may only be rectified by way of appeal, although where the order or judgment has not yet been sealed, the judge retains a power of review.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Application — Assessment of Court Record
Where the pleadings, evidence on record, and portions of the judgment itself consistently refer to one property description, but the final orders mistakenly refer to a different property, the court may apply the slip rule to correct the error to reflect the manifest intention of the court as demonstrated by the record as a whole.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Lakhamshi Brothers Limited v R. Raja & Sons [1966] EA 313
  • Fang Min v Dr Kaijuka Mutabazi Emmanuel (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 06 of 2009)
  • UDB v Oil Seeds (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 15 of 1977)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Okwana_v_Oonyu_(Miscellaneous_Application_116_of_2022)_[2023]_UGHCLD_226_(15_February_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.