Wakilii

Omiat v Serere District Local Government & 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 5 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 184 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to amend decree under slip rule arising from Civil Suit No. 10 of 2016
Decision
Decree amended to include eviction order inadvertently omitted from final orders but clearly stated in body of judgment

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

A court has inherent jurisdiction under the slip rule in section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct clerical errors in decrees or orders where the decree does not reflect the court's manifest intention as expressed in the body of the judgment. Where a judgment clearly issues an eviction order when determining remedies but inadvertently omits that order from the final summary of orders, the court may correct the decree to give full effect to its judgment without altering its substantive decision. The court is not functus officio in such circumstances.

Outcome

Decree amended to include eviction order inadvertently omitted from final orders but clearly stated in body of judgment

Facts

In Civil Suit No. 10 of 2016, judgment was delivered on 15 June 2022 declaring the plaintiff Omiat Moses as customary owner of approximately 150 acres of land and finding the defendants to be trespassers. On page 37 of that judgment, the court stated: 'This Honourable court having found that the suit land belongs to the plaintiff doth issue an eviction order against all the defendants from the suit land comprised of over 150 acres of land.' However, when the court summarised its final orders on pages 38-39, the eviction order was inadvertently omitted. A decree was extracted on 13 July 2022 based on the summary of orders, without the eviction order. The applicant brought this application under the slip rule to have the decree amended to include the eviction order that the court had clearly intended to issue.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a clerical error in the decree of the Court.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Summary of Orders in HCCS No. 10 of 2016 corrected to include eviction order: 'There is hereby issued an eviction order against all the defendants from the suit land comprised of over 150 acres of land.'
  • Applicant directed to extract a fresh decree reflecting the corrected orders.
  • Decree extracted on 13 July 2022 set aside.
  • Each party to bear own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Section 99 Civil Procedure Act — Correction of Clerical Errors in Decrees
Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers a 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 of its own motion or on application by any party, in order to give effect to the true and express intention of the court.
Civil Procedure — Functus Officio — Exceptions Under Slip Rule
A court is not functus officio where it exercises jurisdiction under the slip rule in sections 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act to rectify clerical or mathematical errors in order to give effect to the court's judgment. The slip rule is an exception to the general principle that a judicial officer becomes functus officio after passing judgment.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Discrepancy Between Body of Judgment and Summary of Orders
Where the body of a judgment clearly states that a particular order is issued but that order is inadvertently omitted from the summary of final orders, the court may invoke the slip rule to correct the summary of orders to align it with the body of the judgment, thereby giving full effect to the court's manifest intention without altering the substantive decision.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Test for Correction — Manifest Intention
A slip order will only be made where the court is fully satisfied that it is giving effect to the intention of the court at the time when judgment was given, or in the case of a matter which was overlooked, where the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the order which it would have made had the matter been brought to its attention. The applicant must prove that there was a clerical or arithmetic mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission which did not give effect to the intention of the court when it passed the judgment.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (2)

  • Lakhamshi Brothers Limited v Raja & Sons [1966] 1 EA 313
  • Uganda Development Bank Ltd v Oil Sees (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 1997)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Omiat v Serere District Local Government & 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 5 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 184 (5 April 2024)
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.