Wakilii

Ssimbwa v Bamweyana and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 711 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 172 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 105 of 2021, followed by correction of ruling under Civil Procedure Act s.99
Decision
Application granted; respondents found in contempt; caveat ordered removed; compensation awarded

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 corrected clerical errors in its earlier ruling of 26 August 2022 under Civil Procedure Act s.99. The original ruling found the 1st to 3rd respondents in contempt of court for lodging a caveat on Kyadondo Block 249 plot 1330 land at Bunga in violation of court orders, directed removal of the caveat, and awarded UGX 30,000,000 compensation. The correction amended three errors: identifying the correct respondents as 1st to 3rd respondents, correcting the land block number from 250 to 249, and changing the disposition from application dismissed to application succeeds with costs to the applicant.

Outcome

Application granted; respondents found in contempt; caveat ordered removed; compensation awarded

Facts

The applicant filed an application seeking orders that the 1st to 3rd respondents acted in contempt of court by lodging a caveat on land comprised in Kyadondo Block 249 plot 1330 land at Bunga, removal of the caveat by the 4th respondent, compensation, general damages and costs. The court delivered its ruling by email on 26 August 2022, finding the 1st to 3rd respondents in contempt, directing removal of the caveat, and awarding UGX 30,000,000 compensation. However, the ruling contained three clerical errors: it referred to respondents generally rather than specifically the 1st to 3rd respondents, stated the wrong block number (250 instead of 249), and stated the application was dismissed when it had in fact been granted. The applicant's advocates wrote to court on 31 August 2022 identifying these errors and requesting correction under Civil Procedure Act s.99.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st to 3rd respondents acted in contempt of court by lodging a caveat on land comprised in Kyadondo Block 249 plot 1330.
  2. Whether the court has jurisdiction to correct clerical errors in its ruling under Civil Procedure Act s.99.

Orders

  • The 1st to 3rd respondents' acts amounted to contempt of court orders.
  • The 4th respondent to vacate the caveat on Kyadondo Block 249 plot 1330 land at Bunga.
  • Compensation of UGX 30,000,000 awarded to the applicant.
  • This application succeeds with costs to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Correction of Judgments — Clerical Errors — Section 99 Civil Procedure Act
Under Civil Procedure Act s.99, the court may at any time correct clerical or mathematical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission, either of its own motion or on application of any party, to give effect to the true and express intention of the court.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Section 98 Civil Procedure Act — Ends of Justice
Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act allows the court to exercise its inherent powers to make any order it deems necessary to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of court process.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Test for Application — Manifest Intention of Court
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 it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the order which it would have made had the matter been brought to its attention.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Uganda Development Bank Ltd v Oil Sees (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 1997)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssimbwa_v_Bamweyana_and_3_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._711_of_2022)_[2022]_UGHCLD_172_(8_September_2022)
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.