Wakilii

Watamba Micheal v Namutolo Richard (Miscellaneous Application 417 of 2023)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 442 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment and consequential orders arising from Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2019
Decision
Application granted; judgment corrected; eviction and vacant possession ordered

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 High Court granted an application to review and correct a clerical error in Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2019 where the judgment stated that the trial court's decision was 'upheld' when it should have read 'set aside'. The error was apparent on the face of the record as all grounds of appeal had been resolved in the appellant's favour. The court issued consequential orders of eviction and vacant possession to give effect to the corrected judgment.

Outcome

Application granted; judgment corrected; eviction and vacant possession ordered

Facts

The applicant instituted Civil Suit No. 31 of 2017 in the Magistrates' Court of Bududa concerning disputed land measuring 10 ft by 20 ft at Bududa Town Council on Kimaswa Road. The trial magistrate delivered judgment against the applicant on 26 April 2019. The applicant appealed to the High Court (Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2019). The High Court allowed the appeal and resolved all five grounds in the appellant's favour, finding that the appellant proved his case and that the transaction between the respondents was illegal. However, the judgment's conclusion contained a clerical error stating that the trial court's judgment was 'upheld' instead of 'set aside'. Despite the appellate judgment, the respondent remained in possession of the suit land. The applicant brought this application to correct the error and obtain consequential orders of eviction.

Issues

  1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for review of the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2019?
  2. Whether there are sufficient grounds for the grant of consequential orders of eviction and vacant possession?

Orders

  • The error at page 9, second last line of the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2019 is corrected to read that 'the decision of the trial court is set aside, and the judgment and orders of the trial court are set aside.'
  • Consequential order of eviction and vacant possession of the suit land and lock-up is hereby issued against the Respondent to give effect to the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2019.
  • Since the application was heard ex parte, no orders as to costs are awarded.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of Judgment — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Clerical Error in Conclusion
An error apparent on the face of the record refers to an evident error which does not require extraneous matter to show its incorrectness and is an error so manifest and clear that no court would permit it to remain on the record. Where a judgment resolves all grounds of appeal in favour of the appellant but the conclusion erroneously states that the trial court's decision is 'upheld' instead of 'set aside', this constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review and correction.
Review of Judgment — Grounds for Review — Legal Grievance
A person considers himself aggrieved if he has suffered a legal grievance, meaning that the judgment is given against him or affects his legal interests. Such a person may apply for review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules on account of mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
Consequential Orders — Definition and Purpose
A consequential order is an order that follows as a result of an earlier main order and may have an indirect or secondary result in the relief awarding process. A consequential order is appurtenant to the principal order and is issued to give effect to a judgment where enforcement has been frustrated by an error in the judgment.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (3)

  • Mohamed Alibhai v Bukenya and Custodian Board (SCCA No. 56 of 1996)
  • Levi Outa v Uganda Transport Company [1985] HCB 340
  • LAUTECH v Ogunwobi, Suit No. CA/1/279/01, (2006) 4N.W.L. R (Pt. 971) 569 at 592

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Watamba Micheal v Namutolo Richard (Miscellaneous Application 417 of 2023) [2026] UGHC 442 (4 May 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.