Wakilii

Swatt Security Limited v Genagri Plantations and 2 Others (Civil Suit 256 of 2018)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 145 · 2023 Judgment Corrected AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Correction of judgment order under sections 98 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act
Decision
Judgment corrected to reflect court's true intention regarding allocation of mesne profits and compensation

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (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 4 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations steady — 4 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. 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 exercised its inherent powers under sections 98 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct errors in its earlier judgment. The court corrected the allocation of mesne profits and compensation awards, reducing mesne profits payable by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant from UGX 100,000,000 to UGX 50,000,000, and awarding compensation of UGX 700,000,000 payable by the 2nd and 3rd defendants to the 1st defendant for their involvement in creating a duplicate certificate of title.

Outcome

Judgment corrected to reflect court's true intention regarding allocation of mesne profits and compensation

Facts

This is a correction ruling following an earlier judgment in Civil Suit No. 256 of 2018. The court identified errors in its original judgment relating to orders 11 and 13 concerning mesne profits and damages. The 3rd defendant brought the errors to the court's attention through a letter dated 15 May 2023 requesting correction under the slip rule. The original order 11 incorrectly awarded mesne profits of UGX 700,000,000 against the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The court's intention was to ensure the 2nd and 3rd defendants made amends for their involvement in creating another certificate of title while an existing title was in place.

Issues

  1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to correct errors in its judgment under the slip rule.
  2. Whether the awards of mesne profits and compensation in the original judgment contained errors requiring correction.

Orders

  • On page 38 line 11, the sum of UGX 100,000,000 awarded as mesne profits to be substituted by UGX 50,000,000 to be paid to the 1st defendant by the plaintiff.
  • On page 39 line 2, the sum of UGX 50,000,000 awarded as damages to the 1st defendant, to be substituted with UGX 700,000,000 as a fair amount of compensation to the 1st defendant, to be paid by the 2nd and 3rd defendants.
  • On page 40, in respect of Order No. 11, to correspond with item 2 above, by deleting the said order and replacing it with an award of compensation of UGX 700,000,000, payable by the 2nd and 3rd defendants to the 1st defendant/counterclaimant.
  • On page 40, in respect of Order 13, to correspond with item 1 above, by deleting that order and replacing it with an order to the plaintiff company requiring it to pay mesne profits of UGX 50,000,000 to the 1st defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Correction of Errors in Judgments
Under sections 98 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, a court has inherent jurisdiction to correct clerical or mathematical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission, either on its own motion or on application by a party, to give effect to the true and express intention of the court.
Civil Procedure — Slip Rule — Test for Correction
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 the 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)

  • Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.98
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.99

Cases cited (1)

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

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

Swatt_Security_Limited_v_Genagri_Plantations_and_2_Others_(Civil_Suit_256_of_2018)_[2023]_UGHCLD_145_(13_June_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.