Uganda Case Law

Isikwize v Baguma

Isikwize v Baguma (Civil Suit 22 of 2019) [2025] UGHC 136 (28 February 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 22 of 2019

The court found that the misquotation of the suit number in its ruling dated 27th February 2023 constituted an accidental slip or clerical error, which is rectifiable under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act (the slip rule). The error did not affect the substance of the decision but was a technical mistake in the citation of the suit number, likely caused by the similarity to the original case number. The court confirmed its inherent power to correct such errors to give effect to its manifest intention, provided the correction does not amount to a substantive review or alteration of the ju…

Source excerpt

• Slip Rule Corrections
• Clerical Errors In Judgments
• Dismissal For Want Of Prosecution
• Case Number Rectification

Nantale v Okubiriba

Nantale v Okubiriba (Miscellaneous Application No. 107 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCD 242 (18 February 2021)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 107 of 2019

Judge

Katamba Nkwanga, J

The court found that the appellate judge's intention was to uphold the trial court's judgment and consequential orders, which included compensation for the suit property at its current market value, not merely the historical purchase price. The omission of the market value in the appellate judgment was deemed an accidental slip, correctable under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act. The application was non-contentious, and the affidavit by counsel was competent. The slip rule was applicable because the correction sought was to give effect to the manifest intention of the court, not to alter…

Source excerpt

• Slip Rule Corrections
• Compensation For Illegal Sale
• Judgment Correction
• Market Value Assessment

Utoda v Uganda Revenue Authority

Utoda v Uganda Revenue Authority [2019] UGSC 27 (19 September 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal could not vary its decree after it had been upheld on appeal, and dismissed UTODA’s challenge with costs.

• Vat Refunds
• Compound Interest Awards
• Appellate Jurisdiction
• Slip Rule Corrections
• Appellate-jurisdiction
• Slip-rule