Share
Alitubeera and Masaba v Andrew Daniel Ribbens and Others (Civil Application No. 38 of 2012) [2012] UGCA 61 (17 February 2012)
- Citation
- [2012] UGCA 61
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Mpagi-Bahigeine, DCJ, Nshimye, JA, Arach-Amoko JA
- Case number
- Civil Application No. 38 of 2012
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Mpagi-Bahigeine, DCJ, Nshimye, JA, Arach-Amoko JA
- Case number
- Civil Application No. 38 of 2012
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court of Appeal unanimously held that the intention expressed in its previous judgment regarding the guardianship order would only be fully realized by deleting condition 1(e). The application for review was granted, and condition 1(e) was deleted as prayed. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to ensure its orders accurately reflected its intention and the best interests of the children involved.
Court disposition
application_granted
Orders
- Condition 1(e) in the previous judgment is deleted as prayed.
- The application for review is granted.
02
Material facts
Parties
Andrew Daniel Ribbens
ApplicantSara Anne Marie Shepard Ribbens
ApplicantMatthew John Zimmermann
ApplicantAudrey Finitane Green Zimmerman
ApplicantDeborah Joyce Alitubeera
RespondentRichard Masaba
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the court should review its earlier judgment to delete condition 1(e) as prayed by the applicants.
- 02
Whether the deletion of condition 1(e) will give full effect to the court's intention regarding the guardianship order.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants sought a review of the court's earlier judgment, specifically requesting the deletion of condition 1(e) to ensure the full effect of the guardianship order as intended by the court.
- Respondent
- No substantive opposition or argument from the respondents is recorded in the ruling.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court's inherent jurisdiction; Civil Procedure Act, Cap 71.
A court may review its own judgment to correct or clarify conditions that do not give full effect to its intention.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court of Appeal unanimously held that the intention expressed in its previous judgment regarding the guardianship order would only be fully realized by deleting condition 1(e). The application for review was granted, and condition 1(e) was deleted as prayed. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to ensure its orders accurately reflected its intention and the best interests of the children involved.
Court disposition
application_granted
- Condition 1(e) in the previous judgment is deleted as prayed.
- The application for review is granted.
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 38 OF 2012 (Arising out of Civil Appeals No. 70 & 81 of 2011).
BETWEEN
IN ATHE MATTER OF DEBORAH JOYCE ALITUBEERA AND RICHARD MASABA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
AND
AIN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A GUARDIANSHIP ORDER BY ANDREW DANIEL RIBBENS AND SARA ANNE MARIE SHEPARD RIBBENS AND MATTHEW JOHN ZIMMERMANN & AUDREY FINITANE GREEN ZIMMERMAN ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
HON JUSTICE A. E. N. MPAGI BAHIGEINE, DCJ; CORAM: HON JUSTICE A. S. NSHIYE, JA; HON JUSTICE M. S. ARACH AMOKO, JA
RULING OF THE COURT:
$\bigcirc$
We are of the unanimous view that our intention as expressed in our judgment will only be fully given effect to by reviewing it and deleting condition 1(e) expressed therein - the application is thus granted. Condition 1(e) is deleted as prayed.
$\therefore$ /...day of .... Dated at Kampala this. $...$ HON LADY A. E. N. MPAGI-BAHIGEINE, THE ORIGINAL HIEF IUÉTICÉ CERTIFIED DEPUT anda inneal Juuri Radistracy the $\xi_{\lambda}$ HONMR. JUSTICE A. S. NSHIMYE JUSTICE/OF APPEAL HON LADY JUSTICE M. S. ARACH AMOKO JUSTICE OF APPEAL
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.