Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Mugenyi and Another v Nasser (Civil Application 1150 of 2023; Civil Application 526 of 2023) [2024] UGCA 338 (31 October 2024)
The Court of Appeal of Uganda corrected a clerical error in its ruling, changing the respondent’s advocate’s name from Peter Kasaija to Ita Kasaija.
Kagumba & Another v Nandutu & 6 Others (Miscellaneous Application 314 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 648 (5 July 2024)
The High Court corrected a prior ruling under the slip rule after finding conflicting orders on costs. It amended the order to reflect costs for the successful applicants.
Kagumba & Another v Nandutu & 6 Others (Miscellaneous Application 314 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 647 (5 July 2024)
The High Court corrected a prior ruling on costs under the slip rule, finding the conflicting costs orders were an accidental slip and amending the order to award costs to the successful applicants.
Ham Enterprises Uganda Limited and 2 Others v Katende and Others (Consolidated Suits) (Miscellaneous Application 307 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCD 9 (12 January 2024)
The court found that the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 717 of 2021 contained a clerical error regarding which suit was withdrawn by the 5th respondent. The error was in referencing HCCS No. 822/2017 instead of HCCS No. 330/2013. The court held that under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, it has the power to correct such clerical mistakes to reflect its true intention, provided the correction does not alter the substance of the judgment. The correction was necessary to avoid distortion of facts and to ensure justice is served. The application was granted, and the ruling and orde…
Source excerpt
Retired Col Omara v Abule (Miscellaneous Application 90 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 258 (21 March 2023)
The court found that the reference to Acholi and English as the languages in which the respondent's witness statement was explained was a clerical error. The record from the lower court clearly indicated that the correct languages were Ateso and English. Applying Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act and the slip rule, the court held that it has the power to correct such accidental slips or omissions in its judgment to reflect its true intention, provided the correction does not alter the substance of the judgment. Since the respondent did not contest the application and the correction merely…
Source excerpt
Okwana v Oonyu (Miscellaneous Application 116 of 2022) [2023] UGHCLD 226 (15 February 2023)
The court found, upon reviewing the pleadings and evidence, that the applicant's claim and the subject matter of the proceedings consistently referred to Plot 41 Block C Market Street, Ngora Town Council. The amended plaint and oral testimony supported this, and there was no substantive opposition to the amended claim. The reference to Plot 14 in the judgments of both the lower and appellate courts was a clerical error. Applying the slip rule under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court determined that it was empowered to correct this error to reflect its true intention and the actu…
Source excerpt
Ssimbwa v Bamweyana and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 711 of 2022) [2022] UGHCLD 172 (8 September 2022)
The High Court corrected clerical errors in its ruling, confirming contempt findings, the correct land description, and that the application succeeded with costs.
Kahoora Enterprises Limited and 3 Others v Modpart Limited and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1455 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 108 (21 February 2022)
The High Court refused to correct a judgment under the slip rule, holding that the alleged error was substantive, not clerical or accidental.
Wasswa v African Field Epidemiology Network (AFENET) (Miscellaneous Application No. 26 of 2017) [2017] UGIC 11 (10 March 2017)
The Industrial Court has jurisdiction under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct clerical or mathematical errors in its awards, especially where its own rules are silent on the procedure. The corrections sought by the applicant were supported by affidavit evidence and were not substantively challenged by the respondent, who failed to file an affidavit in reply. The corrections do not alter the intention or substance of the original award but merely rectify accidental slips or omissions. The pendency of an appeal does not preclude the court from making such corrections, as they do…
Source excerpt
