Wakilii

Tumusime & Anor v Saracen (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 0032 of 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGHCFD 27 · 2016 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review to set aside order rejecting plaint on limitation grounds
Decision
Plaint rejection set aside and main suit reinstated for hearing on the merits

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

Held that a typographical error in the plaint stating the deceased died on 13 May 2011 instead of 13 November 2011 constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. The death certificates attached to the pleadings showed the correct date, and the suit was filed within the statutory limitation period. The error caused a miscarriage of justice and should not be visited upon the applicants due to counsel's mistake. Application allowed, ruling set aside, and main suit reinstated.

Outcome

Plaint rejection set aside and main suit reinstated for hearing on the merits

Facts

The first applicant, a minor, sued through the second applicant as next friend for damages arising from the death of his mother Kamakune Stella and sibling Biyonse, allegedly caused by negligent shooting by the respondent's employee on 13 November 2011. The plaint was filed on 10 September 2014. The respondent raised a preliminary objection on limitation grounds. The plaint stated the deceased died on 13 May 2011, which would make the suit time-barred under the three-year limitation period. However, the death certificates attached to the pleadings showed the correct date as 13 November 2011. The trial judge found the suit time-barred and rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d). The applicants applied for review on grounds that the date error was apparent on the face of the record and caused a miscarriage of justice, as the suit was filed within time based on the correct date shown in the attached certificates.

Issues

  1. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the trial court's ruling that the suit was time barred.
  2. Whether the error caused a miscarriage of justice warranting review of the judgment.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Ruling of the trial court rejecting the plaint set aside.
  • Main suit HCT-01-CV-CS No. 0032 of 2014 reinstated.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of Judgment — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Typographical Error
A typographical error in pleadings that contradicts documentary evidence attached to the same pleadings constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record where the error leads to an incorrect finding that causes a miscarriage of justice.
Review of Judgment — Grounds for Review — Miscarriage of Justice
An error by counsel in drafting pleadings should not be visited upon the client where the error causes a substantial miscarriage of justice and the true facts are apparent from other documents on the record.
Review of Judgment — Test for Error Apparent on Face of Record
For an error to constitute a ground for review, it must be an evident error apparent on the face of the record which does not require extraneous matter to show its incorrectness, and must be so manifest and clear that no court would permit it to remain on record.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (3)

  • Kanyabwera v Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • Komaketch v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 21 of 2001)
  • Okumu v Amudhe & 2 Others [1979] HCB 229

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tumusime & Anor v Saracen (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 0032 of 2016) [2016] UGHCFD 27 (21 September 2016)
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.