Wakilii

Wasswa v African Field Epidemiology Network (AFENET) (Miscellaneous Application No. 26 of 2017)

Industrial Court · [2017] UGIC 11 · 2017 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to correct clerical errors in an earlier award delivered on 3 February 2017
Decision
Application granted with seven clerical corrections made to the award delivered on 3 February 2017

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 Industrial Court has jurisdiction under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct clerical or mathematical errors in its award without altering the substance of the decision. The pendency of an appeal does not bar such corrections. Where a respondent fails to rebut by affidavit the applicant's assertion that errors are purely clerical, the court will grant the application to correct them.

Outcome

Application granted with seven clerical corrections made to the award delivered on 3 February 2017

Facts

The applicant brought an application under sections 98 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act seeking to correct what he characterised as mathematical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions in the judgment or award delivered by the Industrial Court on 3 February 2017. The applicant swore an affidavit itemising seven clerical or mathematical errors requiring correction. The respondent had filed an appeal against the original award and opposed the application, arguing that the court should allow the appeal process to proceed without correction and that the Industrial Court should apply its own procedural rules rather than the Civil Procedure Act. The respondent did not file an affidavit in reply to rebut the applicant's assertions that the errors were purely clerical.

Issues

  1. Whether the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to correct clerical or mathematical errors in its award after delivery.
  2. Whether the corrections sought would alter the substance of the award.
  3. Whether the pendency of an appeal bars the court from correcting clerical errors in its award.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • The name of the claimant at page 1 in the Award corrected to read 'WASSWA'.
  • On page 6 of the Award paragraph 4 first line corrected to read 'COUNSEL FOR CLAIMANT'.
  • On page 14 of the Award item (6) the figure in the second last sentence corrected to read '5 1/2 years'.
  • On page 14 of the Award item (7) second line the figure corrected to read '24% per annum'.
  • On page 14 item 7(2) the figure corrected to read '14,068 USD'.
  • On page 15 item 7 the figure corrected to read '24% per annum'.
  • On page 15 item 8 the words 'Aug 2015' corrected to read 'Aug 2017'.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Correction of Errors — Jurisdiction of Industrial Court
The Industrial Court has jurisdiction to apply section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct clerical or mathematical errors in its awards where there is a lacuna in its own procedural rules, or may regulate its own procedure under section 40 of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act.
Civil Procedure — Correction of Errors — Effect of Pending Appeal
The pendency of an appeal does not bar a court from correcting clerical errors in its award under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, provided the corrections do not alter the substance of the decision.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Failure to Rebut
Where an applicant swears an affidavit asserting that errors in an award are purely clerical and the respondent fails to file an affidavit in reply rebutting those assertions, the court will treat the applicant's evidence as unrebutted and counsel's oral submissions alone cannot constitute a proper basis for opposition.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (1)

  • Fang Min v Dr. Kaijuka Mutabazi (Supreme Court Application No. 6 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wasswa_v_African_Field_Epidemiology_Network_(AFENET)_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._26_of_2017)_[2017]_UGIC_11_(10_March_2017)
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.