Wakilii

Solomon Serwagi Kasirye v Bernard Muhangi Bamwine and 8 Others [2026] UGHCLD 41

High Court · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to correct a clerical error in a High Court judgment under the slip rule
Decision
Judgment in Civil Suit No. 645 of 2018 rectified under the slip rule to read '25 Hectares' in place of '25 acres'

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 describing one third of 76 hectares of land as '25 acres' was a manifest clerical or mathematical error that did not express the trial judge's intention, and was correctable under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act. The words 'at any time' in section 99 permit correction at any point after judgment; the respondents' contention that the slip rule may only be invoked before an appeal is lodged has no legal foundation. A pending appeal does not oust the trial court's jurisdiction, particularly where the error is not a ground of appeal, and the correction alters no order. The only bar would be intervening circumstances, such as third-party rights, rendering correction inexpedient or inequitable; none existed. Application allowed; '25 acres' substituted with '25 Hectares'.

Outcome

Judgment in Civil Suit No. 645 of 2018 rectified under the slip rule to read '25 Hectares' in place of '25 acres'

Facts

Judgment in High Court Civil Suit No. 645 of 2018 was delivered on 29 August 2023 by Hon. Lady Justice Alexandra Nkonge Rugadya. The suit concerned land comprised in Plot 4, Block No. 11, Bulemezi at Nampyangu, measuring 76.0 hectares. By Order No. 3 the trial judge held that the plaintiff, as a beneficiary of his late father's estate who had never received his share, was entitled to one third of the suit land, which she described as 'equivalent to 25 acres', or its equivalent in Uganda shillings at current value. The plaintiff applied for rectification under the slip rule, contending that one third of 76 hectares is 25 hectares, not 25 acres, and that the error was manifest on the face of the judgment. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 8th respondents opposed, asserting that the matter was in controversy and formed part of grounds of appeal in Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2024, that the slip rule could not be invoked after an appeal was lodged, and that the application was brought over two years after judgment. The Court found that the reference to acres was not a ground in the memorandum of appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under the slip rule to rectify orders it issued in Civil Suit No. 645 of 2018 where the respondents have a pending appeal (Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2024) against that judgment.
  2. Whether the reference in the judgment to one third of the suit land as '25 acres' rather than '25 Hectares' was a clerical error capable of correction under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Order No. 3 at page 32 of the judgment in High Court Civil Suit No. 645 of 2018 amended so that the plaintiff's entitlement reads 'one third of the suit land equivalent to 25 Hectares, (or its equivalent in Uganda shillings at the current value)'.
  • No order is made as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Correction of Clerical or Mathematical Mistakes in Judgments
Under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, a court may correct a clerical or mathematical mistake in a judgment, decree or order where the error does not express the manifest intention of the court; the rule exists to bring the record into harmony with what the court actually decided.
Land & Property — Description of Land — Mathematical Error in Stating Acreage or Hectarage of an Awarded Share
Where a court awards a fractional share of land of a stated area, a stated equivalent measurement that is arithmetically inconsistent with that fraction is a manifest clerical error and not an expression of the court's intention; one third of 76 hectares is 25 hectares, not 25 acres.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Timing — Effect of a Pending Appeal on the Trial Court's Power to Correct
The words 'at any time' in section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act permit the power of correction to be exercised at any time after judgment, and the proposition that the slip rule may be invoked only before another party lodges an appeal is not grounded in any law, especially where the error is not a ground in the memorandum of appeal and its correction alters no order of the court.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Limits — Intervening Circumstances and Third-Party Rights
A correction under the slip rule will be refused only where intervening circumstances, such as the accrued rights of third parties, would render the proposed correction inexpedient, inequitable, unjust or prejudicial.
Civil Procedure — Costs — No Order as to Costs Where the Error Corrected Was the Court's Own
Where an application succeeds in correcting an error made by the court itself rather than by any party, it is appropriate to make no order as to costs.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Quick Service v Thakrar [1958] E.A at 358
  • Vallabhdas Karsandas Raniga v Mansukhlal Jivraj and others [1965] EA at 700
  • Moore Vs Buchanan and Anor [1967] 3 All ER at 273 / [1967] 1 WLR 1341

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Solomon Serwagi Kasirye v Bernard Muhangi Bamwine and 8 Others [2026] UGHCLD 41 (23 February 2026)
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.