[2023] UGCommC 276

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA [COMMERCIAL DIVISION]

MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3038 OF 2023 [ARISING OUT OF MISC. APPLICATION NO. 2816 OF 2023] [ARISING FROM MISC. APPLICATION NO. 2518 OF 2023]

[ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO. 1516 OF 2023]

AISHA MULUNGI alias

AISHA NAMUSISI ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT

VERSUS

1. DON UGANDA LIMITED 2. KASOZI MUWANGA 3. STANBIC BANK UGANDA LIMITED :::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENTS

**Before: Hon. Lady Justice Cornelia Kakooza Sabiiti**

**RULING**

Background

1. The Applicant filed Civil Suit No 1516 of 2023 and Misc. Application No. 2518 of 2023 for temporary injunction which are pending before this Court. The Applicant also filed Misc. Application No. 2816 of 2023 for an Interim Order to keep the status quo and restraining the 3rd Respondent from continuing with the intended advertisement for sale of the mortgaged properties and the appointment of the Receiver to the 1st respondent pending the determination of the main Application for temporary injunction. The learned Assistant Registrar fixed the Application for hearing inter-parties on the 30th November 2023 and after hearing the submissions adjourned to 18th December 2023 for ruling. On 1st December 2023, the learned Assistant Registrar signed an Administrative Interim order maintaining the status quo pending the ruling on 18th December 2023. 2. On the same date of 1st December 2023, the learned Assistant Registrar recalled her earlier Administrative Order and issued another order stating that- 1. *The Respondents are restrained from selling the mortgaged properties pending the ruling in the application on the 18th December 2023.* 2. *The 3rd Respondent can proceed with placing 1st Respondent under Receivership, however, they shall not sell any of the mortgaged properties.* 3. *The earlier order issued is recalled.* 3. On the 8th of December 2023, learned Assistant Registrar delivered her ruling on the application for an interim order and granted it on condition that the Applicant pays 30% of the outstanding sums due within 60 days from the date of the ruling and lapsed all the Administrative Orders of 1st December 2023. Subsequently, on 11th December 2023, the Learned Assistant Registrar delivered an Amended Ruling amending the orders in the 1st Ruling of 8th December 2023 and stated that-

*“The orders of this court issued on 1st December 2023 herby lapse save for the second paragraph*.”

The Review Application

1. This application was brought under Section 14, 33 of Judicature Act Cap 13, Section 82 & 98 of the CPA, Order 46 rule 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Rules seeking orders that; the Learned Assistant Registrar’s Recall Order dated 1st December 2023 directing the 3rd Respondent to place the 1st Respondent under Receivership be reviewed and set aside; the subsequent Amended Ruling and Orders of the Learned Assistant Registrar of 11th December, 2023 Placing the 1st Respondent under Receivership be reviewed and set-aside; this court quashes the actions of the learned Assistant Registrar in MA. 2816/2023 and this Court issues an Order maintaining the status quo that existed at the time of filing of an Application for Interim order pending the determination of the main Application for temporary injunction pending before this Honourable Court. 2. The application was supported by an affidavit of AISHA MULUNG1 alias AISHA NAMUSIS1 the Applicant. The Applicant’s case is that; the Learned Assistant Registrar recalled her earlier Administrative Order without hearing the parties and issued another order placing the 1st Respondent under Receivership by the 3rd respondent thereby changing the status quo that existed. That the Learned Registrar on the 8th of December 2023 delivered her ruling for interim order and lapsed all the Administrative Orders of 1st December 2023 that placed the 1st Respondent under Receivership. That on 11th of December 2023, the Learned Assistant Registrar delivered an Amended Ruling changing the order in the 1st Ruling and placed the 1st Respondent under Receivership which did not exist in the ruling of 8th December 2023. That the Learned Assistant Registrar had no Jurisdiction to amend her ruling and change Orders issued in her ruling of 8th December, 2023 and that her actions in recalling the order of 1st December 2023 are tainted with procedural illegalities and are ultra-vires and should be reviewed by this court. That there are errors apparent on the record which should be corrected in review and sufficient reason to review the Orders of the Learned Assistant in recalling her orders and amending her ruling since she was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to exercise such powers which actions have greatly prejudiced the applicant. 3. In reply to this application, **KENNETH KAWALYA**, the Head of Business Support and Resolution of the third respondent deposed an affidavit in reply. The 3rd respondent states that on 1st December 2023, the Applicant's advocates proceeded to extract an interim administrative order from court that was irregular and not reflective of the administrative orders that the learned Registrar declared in court in the presence of all the parties. That on 1st December 2023, the 3rd Respondent's advocates then proceeded to write to court informing the learned Registrar of the irregularities in the order extracted by the Applicant's counsel and the learned Registrar proceeded to issue a new order wherein she recalled the earlier irregularly extracted order and proceeded to order that the Respondents be restrained from selling the mortgaged properties pending the ruling on 18th December, 2023 and also indicating that the 3rd Respondent can proceed with placing the 1st Respondent under Receivership. 4. That on the 5th of December 2023, pursuant to the Debenture agreements between the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent, further to the interim administrative order of the learned Registrar that was delivered on 30th November 2023, the Appellant appointed Pamela Natamba of PricewaterhouseCoopers Limited (PwC) as Receiver/Manager of the 2nd Respondent to take over all the assets business and undertaking. The appointed Receiver, Pamela Natamba of PwC has since taken possession of the 2nd Respondent's assets. That on the 8th of December 2023, the learned Registrar delivered the ruling in Misc. Application No. 2816 of 2023 wherein she conditionally granted the 1st Respondent's Application for an interim injunction and also lapsed the previously issued orders. That the 3rd Respondent's advocates proceeded to immediately appeal against the ruling of the learned Registrar vide Miscellaneous Appeal No. 0038 of 2023 which is pending before this Honourable Court. That the ruling delivered by the learned Registrar on 8th December, 2023 omitted to take cognizance of the earlier order permitting the 3rd Respondent to put the 1st Respondent under receivership and the learned Registrar on 11th December 2023 on her own motion eventually issued an amended ruling allowing for the Receivership of the 1st Respondent to continue. That the all the orders issued by the learned Registrar in respect to receivership were issued in accordance with the law and that this Application should be dismissed with costs. 5. The affidavit in rejoinder was deposed by the Applicant who states that the Administrative order granted by court was not irregular and was for all the parties to maintain the status quo pending the ruling until the 18th December, 2023 and that the appointment of a receiver could not maintain the status quo that was existing at the time of filing the suit since there was no receiver of the 1st respondent. That the alleged letter by the 3rd respondents advocates to the Registrar was not served to her lawyers. That the Assistant Registrar lacked Jurisdiction to issue a new order for she was functus officio and that the said receiver was appointed pursuant to an Amended ruling of a registrar dated 11th December 2023 which was granted without Jurisdiction. That she is the spouse of the 2nd Respondent who fraudulently mortgaged the family properties without her consent which she is challenging in the main suit. That the said 3rd respondent’s appeal in Misc. Appeal No. 0038 of 2023was overtaken by the Amended ruling dated 11th December, 2023, which was issued irregularly and without jurisdiction.

**Representation**

1. The applicant was represented jointly by **M//s Amanyire and Mwebaze** **Advocates** and **M/s Atwijukire Dennis Advocates**. The 3rd respondent was represented by **M/s KAA Advocates**. The 1st and 2nd respondents did not reply to the application despite service on their advocate as per the affidavit of service on court record. The parties were directed to file written submissions which they complied with and I have had regard to the same during this Ruling.

**Resolution**

Preliminary Objection

1. Counsel for the 3rd respondent raised the following preliminary objection; that Applicant has no locus standi to bring this Application for Review. It was submitted that one of the orders that the Applicant is seeking to challenge are orders that placed the 1st Respondent under receivership. That the 1st Respondent being a legal person with its own corporate identity, separate and distinct from its directors or shareholders, is the right party to challenge any actions regarding placing it under receivership. Counsel for the 3rd respondent cited the case of Fakrudin and Another v Kampala District Land Board and Another Civil Suit No. 570 of 2015, where Hon. Justice Bashaija held that;

*"By locus standi is meant the legal capacity of a person which enables him or her to invoke the jurisdiction of the court in order to be granted a remedy. Locus standi is intrinsically related with the cause of action in any given suit to enable a plaintiff to move court... As that principle applies to the instant case, it was definitely a serious illegality for the plaintiffs to have commenced a suit without locus standi to do so in any of the capacities they purported to sue under. The plaintiffs cannot have any remedy at law”*

1. That since the Applicant is separate and distinct from the 1st Respondent it is only the 1st Respondent that could challenge being placed under receivership and the right not to sell its properties. The Applicant being a minority shareholder cannot file a suit to protect the 1st Respondents assets. The 3rd respondent counsel prayed that on this ground alone, the entire application should be dismissed with costs. 2. In response to the preliminary objection, counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is a shareholder, a director and a spouse of the 2nd Respondent and that her rights have been affected by all the Respondents by fraudulently forging company documents with her signature, affecting her rights as shareholder, Director in the 1st Respondent and spouse of the 2nd Respondent. That it is not the company that is wronged but the Applicant as a shareholder in her own capacity who is complaining of fraud and forgery of her signature on the guarantee documents, resolutions, and various mortgage documents and fraud of the entire transactions surrounding the loan that the applicant complains of in the main suit which this court is yet to investigate. That the issue of whether the applicant has locus as an aggrieved party should be reserved for the main suit. Counsel for the Applicant cited the case of **Allied Bank International Vs Sadru Kara and Abdul Kara Civil Suit No 191 of 2002**, where Hon Justice James Ogola held that-

*“A shareholder can bring a suit when the wrong complained of involves fraud that is committed by those in control of the company”.*

1. I have reviewed the preliminary objection raised by counsel for the 3rd respondent with regard to the locus standi of the Applicant. I find that this issue of locus of the Applicant goes to the merits of the main suit and is not for consideration for review of a decision on an interim order. This matter may be raised for consideration by the court during the hearing of the main application of the temporary injunction with regard to whether there is a prima facie case and is ultimately a matter to be decided upon at the hearing of the main suit. For these reasons, I overrule the preliminary objection.

Merits of the Application

1. This application seeks to review the second Administrative Order of 1st December 2023 and the Amended Ruling of 11th December that were made by the learned Assistant Registrar. With regard to the jurisdiction of this court to review the learned Registrar’s orders and Rulings, it was held in the Supreme Court case of **Attorney General & Uganda Land Commission vs James Mark Kamoga & James Kamala Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004,**by Mulenga JSC as follows;

*“…the review jurisdiction under Order 46 of the CPR is only vested in a Judge of the High Court and not in the registrar. The judicial powers of the registrar are set out under Order 50 of the CPR and under the Practice Direction No.1 of 2002, neither of which include the review jurisdiction. The power to review judgments or orders of the High Court, (including those entered by the registrar) is not among the powers delegated to the registrar.”*

1. In the case of **MK Financiers Limited Vs N. Shah & Co. Ltd and 2 others Miscellaneous Application No. 425 of 2017** Hon. Justice Sekaana explained the ambit of a review application and held that;

*“Review means re-consideration of order or decree by a court which passed the order or decree. If there is an error due to human failing, it cannot be permitted to perpetuate and to defeat justice. Such Mistakes or errors must be corrected to prevent miscarriage of justice…Reviewing a judgment/ruling based on mistake or error apparent on the face of the record can only be done if it is self-evident and does not require an examination or argument to establish it.*

**Submissions**

Submissions by Applicant Counsel

1. Counsel submitted that the failure by learned Assistant Registrar to accord a hearing to the applicant as well as her exercise of jurisdiction not vested in her by law in purporting to recall the order dated ls1 December 2023 to change the status quo, and also her actions of purporting to amend the ruling and adding orders not originally contained in the earlier ruling are errors apparent on the face of the record sufficient to justify the grant of this application. He cited the case of **Ojijo Pascal vs Eseza Catherine Byakika HCMA No. 1028 of 2020**, where Hon. Justice Stephen Mubiru observed that’

*“An error apparent on the face of the record is one which is based on clear disregard of the provisions of the law. Such error is one which is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. Some instances of what constitutes an error apparent on face of the record are: where the applicant was not served with a hearing notice, where the court has based its decision on a ground without giving the applicant an opportunity to address the same and violation of the principles of natural justice.”*

1. It was submitted that the jurisdiction and procedure exercised by the Learned Assistant Registrar in amending her ruling by changing the orders without affording the parties an opportunity to submit on it has got no foundation in law and cited the case of **John Imaniraguha vs Uganda Revenue Authority & another HCMA 2770 of 2023** where it was held by Hon. Justice Mubiru that; *“there cannot be an amendment to any Final order unequivocally made since the result of would trigger another process of adjudication.”* 2. It was further submitted that the slip rule method used by the learned Registrar was not applicable to the instant matter as her action had the effect of changing and or altering the orders in the ruling and by so doing gave herself excessive jurisdiction, which is an illegality. That the action of the registrar was not to correct Clerical or Mathematical mistakes but was substantially changing her decision for which she lacks jurisdiction. Once the learned Registrar has made a decision she is functus officio and had no jurisdiction in revisiting the case except by a higher Court on appeal as was held in **John Imaniraguha vs Uganda Revenue Authority & another (supra).** That lack of jurisdiction exercised by her in the instant matter was a glaring error apparent on the face of the record.

Submissions by 3rd Respondent Counsel

1. Counsel submitted that Applicant brought the instant application under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides for review by an aggrieved party and that the Applicant is not a person aggrieved by the orders of the learned registrar. That the Applicant seeks to challenge the "recall order" dated 1st December 2023 and amended ruling allowing the 3rd Respondent to proceed and exercise its contractual rights under the debenture agreements and place the 1st Respondent under Receivership. That the 3rd Respondent put the 1st respondent under receivership pursuant to debenture deeds executed between the 1st and 3rd Respondents and appointed a Receiver on 5th December, 2023 which notice was duly advertised. 2. That since the Applicant is not a person privy to the debenture deeds or facility letters between the 1st Respondent and 3rd Respondent and therefore has no interest sufficient to be aggrieved by 3rd Respondent exercising its rights under an agreement with the 1st Respondent of putting the 1st respondent under receivership. That it was the 1st Respondent placed under receivership and not the Applicant and by implication the 1st Respondent would be the proper person to challenge the actions of the 3rd Respondent and be aggrieved by the orders of the learned Registrar allowing the 3rd Respondent put it under Receivership. That this review application should be dismissed on this ground. 3. That review can only be sought in three instances: where there is an error apparent on the record; upon discovery of new and important matter of evidence, which after due diligence was not within the Applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him or her at the time the decree was passed or for any other sufficient reason. That in this case the Applicant seeks a review of the Registrar's decision on the grounds that there is an apparent error or omission on the part of the court but that there is no such apparent error or omission on the part of the court and as such this Application is incompetent and should be dismissed with costs. 4. That the learned Registrar recalled the erroneously extracted order and issued an order reflective of the orders made during the proceedings of 30th November 2023. That there was therefore no need to rehear the parties as her subsequent order issued on 1st December 2023 recalling the first order was a result of her decision made during the hearing on 30th December 2023. Counsel cited the cases of **Farm Inputs Care Centre Limited v Klein Karoo Seeds Marketing (PTY) Limited MA 0861 of 2021,** and **Ojijo Pascal v Eseza Catherine Byakiika MA1028 of 2020,** where Hon. Justice Mubiru dismissed applications for review for being out of the scope of review and being a disguised appeal where the error on the face of the record is not self-evident irregularity in the process towards the decision, but rather a drawn out process of reasoning, examination and scrutiny of the law and facts on the merits. That this instant application is a disguised appeal of the order of the learned Registrar and therefore out of the scope of an application for review. 5. With regard to the Amended Ruling of 11th December 2023, it was submitted that Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act provides for amendment of judgments, decrees or orders to correct clerical or mathematical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors arising in them from any accidental slip or omission by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. He cited the cases of **Kahoora Enterprises Limited and 3 others v Modpart Limited and** 2 **others MA 1455 of 2021** and Uganda Railways Corporation v Ekwaru. D. O and 1330 others SCCA 7 of 2019. That on the 11th of December 2023, the Learned Registrar on her own motion amended the ruling earlier delivered by: replacing the word"of'with"being" and stating that the orders of the 1st December 2023 lapsesave for the second paragraph. That the typo graphical errors arose from paragraph 30 to 35 of page 5 of the ruling dated 8th December, 2023 in which the court had erred by stating that the 30% was of Ugx 7,939,629,458, instead of stating that the 30% being Ugx 7,939,629,458. The other typographical error was that the court set aside the entire decision of the 1st December, and omitted to mention that the 2nd paragraph had not lapsed. That these amendments are exactly what is envisaged in the powers to amend Judgments, decrees and orders under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act and it is therefore erroneous for Applicant's counsel to assert that the Registrar was functus officio and had no Jurisdiction to amend the Ruling by correcting minor clerical errors.

Decision

1. The main issue for consideration is; ***Whether this application raises grounds for review?*** The provision for an application for review of court orders is **Section 82 CPA** which provides as follows;

“*Any person considering himself or herself aggrieved by decree or order of court from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred or by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed may apply for a review of judgment to the court that passes the decree or made the order.”*

1. The conditions under which Section 82 is applied are further buttressed in **Order 46 CPR;**

*“(1) Any person considering himself or herself aggrieved-*

*(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or*

*(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed,*

*and who from the discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his or her knowledge or could not be produced by him or her at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him or her, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.”*

1. In the instant case, the Applicant states she is aggrieved by the learned Registrar’s failure by to accord her a hearing by purporting to recall the order dated ls1 December 2023 to change the status quo as well as her exercise of jurisdiction not vested in her by purporting to amend the ruling and adding orders not originally contained in the earlier ruling and that these are errors apparent on the face of the record sufficient to justify the grant of this application. 2. Counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the applicant is not an aggrieved party within the definition of the above provisions of law and that she is challenging the receivership that the 3rd Respondent put the 1st respondent under pursuant to debenture deeds executed between the 1st and 3rd Respondents. That since the Applicant is not a person privy to the debenture deeds or facility letters between the 1st Respondent and 3rd Respondent she therefore has no interest sufficient to be aggrieved. 3. With due respect I do not agree with this submission since the Applicant is clearly challenging the procedure the learned Registrar adopted in recalling an earlier Administrative order. It is not in dispute that the learned Registrar signed the first Administrative order maintaining the status quo until the delivery of her ruling on 18th December 2023. However, this Administrative order was recalled a few hours later and another order was signed that changed the status quo. 4. In the case of **John Imaniraguha vs Uganda Revenue Authority & another HCMA 2770 of 2023,** Hon. Justice Mubiru held that-

*“Some instances of what constitutes a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record are; where the applicant was not served with a hearing notice; where the court has not considered the amended pleadings filed or attachments filed along with the pleadings; where the court has based its decision on a ground without giving the applicant an opportunity to address the same; and violation of the principles of natural justice.”*

1. In the instant case whereas it is true that the learned Registrar initially heard the application for the interim order inter-parties and she signed an order maintaining the status quo, she later recalled this after receiving a letter of complaint from the counsel of the 3rd respondent and acted on it without hearing both parties. It should be noted that the application for the interim order had two main prayers; to stop the sale of the listed mortgaged properties and to stop the appointment of the Receiver pending the hearing and determination if the main application for the temporary injunction. The assertion by the 3rd respondent counsel that the Applicant is not party to the debenture agreements with the 1st respondent and that the appointment of the receiver was done pursuant to the debenture deeds is not a matter for the interim application since these are contested documents to be investigated under the main suit. It is further noted that this submission contradicts the pleadings of the 3rd respondent where in paragraph 10 of the Affidavit in Reply by Kawalya Kenneth clearly states that the Receiver was appointed further to the interim Administrative order of the learned Registrar. 2. In the instant case it is self-evident that the learned Registrar recalled an order she had already signed maintaining the status quo and made changes to the initial status quo that had been earlier maintained. This unilateral action by the learned Registrar was against the principles of natural justice and adversely affected the interests and rights of the Applicant who had earlier obtained a signed order maintaining the status quo and this makes the Applicant an aggrieved party. I therefore find the recall of the first order on 1st December 2023 without hearing the Applicant was an error on the part of the learned Assistant Registrar. 3. With regard to the Amended Ruling of 11th December 2023, the learned Registrar states proceeded under Section 98 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to amend her ruling to clear out arithmetic and clerical errors.

**Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act** provides that-

***99. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders***

*Clerical or mathematical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors arising in them from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.*

1. An examination of the Amended Ruling shows that the learned Assistant Registrar made three corrections/amendments. The first was to correct the typo graphical errors in the ruling dated 8th December, 2023 where the court stated that the Applicant make a security deposit of 30% ***“of”*** Ugx 7,939,629,458, instead of stating 30% ***‘being”*** Ugx 7,939,629,458. The court had in the same ruling stated that the amount owed was UGX 26,465,431,561. Therefore, the clerical mistake was corrected to clarify the phrasing and amount of the 30% deposit since 30% of Ugx 26,465,431,561 amounts to Ugx 7,939,629,458. 2. The second amendment made in the Amended Ruling was the following statement-

*“Lastly, since the essence of interlocutory applications is to maintain the status quo until the dispute in the main case is resolved. The status is that the 1st Respondent is under Receivership and as such should continue.”*

1. The third correction made in the Amended Ruling was the following phrase-

*“The orders of this court issued on 1st December 2023 herby lapse save for the second paragraph*.”

1. This court finds that the 1st correction by the learned Assistant Registrar with regard to the phrasing of the amount of the 30% deposit rightly falls under the scope of Section 99 of the CPA as envisaged in the powers to amend Judgments, decrees and orders since it did not materially change the order but clarified the decision of the court. In the case of **John Imaniraguha vs Uganda Revenue Authority & another (supra),** Hon. Justice Mubiru discussed the correction of clerical errors and the slip rule and held that-

*“Court has no powers to alter its own judgment except for the limited purpose of correcting clerical or mathematical errors. A clerical mistake is a mistake of calculation, or a mistake in writing or typing, whereas an error arising or occurring from accidental slip or omission is an error due to careless mistake or omission on the part of the Court.”*

1. With regard to the second and third corrections made by the learned Assistant Registrar relating to saving the orders for placing the 1st Respondent under receivership that she had lapsed in her ruling of 8th December, this court finds that there were made outside the scope of the slip rule since they introduced substantive changes that were not mentioned under the earlier ruling. In the same case of **John Imaniraguha vs Uganda Revenue Authority & another (supra),** where Hon. Justice Mubiru explained as follows-

*“The slip rule is only applicable to give effect to the court’s thoughts or intentions at the time of making the order and not additional thoughts arising after it is handed down. It cannot be used to correct substantive mistakes, for example an error in law. It cannot be invoked to add a provision having substantive effect which was not in the contemplation of the parties or the court at the hearing. Substantive errors can only be corrected through the appeal process. Due to the functus officio doctrine, the court has no power to correct substantive errors concerning the decision itself (i.e. a mistake of its own in law or otherwise) even if they are apparent on the face of the judgment. In those circumstances, the remedy would lie in the appeal process.”*

1. In the instant case the attempt by the learned Assistant Registrar in the Amended Ruling of 11th December 2023 to save or revive orders that had already been lapsed by her ruling on 8th December 2023 was against the functus officio rule. The registrar therefore acted without jurisdiction and it was an error apparent on the face of the record. It is trite that a decision taken without jurisdiction is a nullity and accordingly the amended ruling is set aside. 2. It is further noted that the Applicant raised other issues relating to the legality of the orders made by the learned Registrar for the applicant to deposit 30% of the outstanding sum. However, these submissions are challenging the merits of the decision made by the Registrar that is best addressed under an appeal and cannot be considered under this application for review. 3. In the Supreme court case of **Theodore Ssekikubo & 2 Others v Attorney General & 4 Others, Constitutional Application No. 4 of 2014**, it was observed that the role of interim orders is to preserve the status quo so as to allow for the determination of the issues in contention between the parties. This court therefore exercises its inherent powers under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to make orders necessary for the ends of justice. **Black's Law Dictionary** defines the status quo ante as *“the situation that existed before something else (being discussed) occurred.*'” In the instant case the status quo ante is that prevailing at the time of the application for interim order before the second Administrative order and Amended Ruling were made. 4. Given the errors apparent on the face of the record, it is in the interest of fairness and justice that this review application succeeds and is therefore granted. Accordingly, the following orders are made- 5. The Learned Assistant Registrar’s Recall Order dated 1st December, 2023 directing the 3rd Respondent to place the 1st Respondent under Receivership is set aside. 6. The Amended Ruling and Orders of the Learned Assistant Registrar of 11th December 2023 with regard to the second and third corrections/amendments is set-aside. 7. The status quo ante that existed at the time of filing of the Application for Interim order is maintained pending the determination of the main Application for temporary injunction. 8. The pending application for the temporary injunction is to be heard by the Deputy Registrar.

The costs of this application will abide the main cause.

It is so ordered.

**CORNELIA KAKOOZA SABIITI**

**JUDGE**

**Date: 22nd December 2023**