Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 04:05 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

31 May 2023

Civil Procedure [2023] UGHC 371

Musoke v Ggingo

Musoke v Ggingo (Miscellaneous Application 114 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 371 (31 May 2023)

Court: High Court of Uganda
Case number: Miscellaneous Application 114 of 2022
Judge: Katamba Nkwanga, J

The court found that the Deputy Registrar made a mathematical error in totaling the taxed costs after the appellate ruling, resulting in a sum higher than what was intended, especially since some items were struck out on appeal. The court determined that the intention of the appellate judge was to vary all transport cost items (items 109 to 122) to Ugx. 70,000/= each, not just items 109, 120, and 121. The failure to apply this variation to all relevant items was an accidental slip. Applying the slip rule under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court rectified the taxed costs to refle…

Source excerpt

Rectification Of Orders
Taxation Of Costs
Accidental Slip Rule
Court Inherent Powers

Read case analysis

30 Mar 2023

Civil Procedure [2023] UGHCCD 94

DFCU Bank Limited v Walusimbi

DFCU Bank Limited v Walusimbi (Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 94 (30 March 2023)

Court: HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number: Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2020
Judge: Nambayo, J

The court found that there was a clear and manifest error on the face of the record, as the order for reinstatement of Misc. Application No. 389 of 2018 was made under Misc. Application No. 649 of 2018, which was unrelated. The respondent's admission of the error and the absence of any application or communication for rectification further confirmed the mistake. The court held that the Registrar lacked the authority to review or correct an order made by a Judge, as such powers are reserved for the High Court. Consequently, the court determined that the error warranted review and set aside the…