[2023] UGHC 371

## **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MASAKA MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 114 OF 2022. (ARISING FROM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 02 OF 2016) (ALL RISING OUT OF CIVIL SUIT NO.36 OF 2014)**

# **MUSOKE MUHAMAD::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT VERSUS**

**CHARLES GGINGO MUJJE:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT**

### *Before; Hon. Justice Victoria Nakintu Nkwanga Katamba* **RULING**

This Application is brought under Order 52 Rule 1 and Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 seeking orders that;

1. The total sum of the bill of costs in HCMA. No.02 of 2018 be rectified from Ugx Shs. 23,244,256/= to Ugx Shs. 7,666,000/=.

2. Costs of the Application be provided for.

The grounds in support of the Application are contained in an affidavit deponed by Musoke Muhamad, where he states as follows, that;

1. He was the Appellant vide HC Taxation Appeal No.02 of 2018 that arose from HCCS. No.10 of 2013.

2. The appeal was duly heard and disposed off by Hon. Justice Dr. Winifred Nabisinde.

3. The Learned Judge ordered that the amounts as taxed would be totaled up by the Learned Deputy Registrar.

4. The totaling was done on 14th April 2021 however, the Applicant was not represented.

5. The Applicant was later informed that the total costs were Ugx. Shs.23,244,256/=.

6. There was a mistake in the totaling and the correct amount ought to be Ugx. Shs. 7,666,000/=.

7. The error in calculation is attributed to the Learned Deputy Registrar however, the Court has jurisdiction to rectify the error.

An affidavit in reply was deponed by the Respondent, Charles Ggingo Mujje and he states briefly as follows, that;


1. The Learned Deputy Registrar's total amount reached was in agreement with the orders and directives of the Learned Appellate Judge.

2. The Applicant agreed to the totaling of the taxed amounts on 14th April 2021 and that the Applicant went through item by item until a total of Shs. 23,244,256/= was reached.

3. The Applicant belatedly tried to challenge the amount but in vain.

4. The Applicant conceded to a sum of Shs. 11,224,250/= as part of the original Shs. 23,244,256/=, made part payments and even voluntarily executed a consent settlement order while also paying the Respondent a sum of Shs. 4,000,000/= on the 25th of November 2021.

On record is an affidavit in rejoinder by the Applicant. Apart from reiterating what was stated in the Affidavit in support, the Applicant also states that the consent settlement was reached through coercion.

Both Parties filed written submissions.

#### **Submissions for the Applicant**.

It was submitted for the Applicant that the Learned Deputy Registrar in totaling the various amounts taxed and allowed as ordered by the Learned Judge on Appeal, made mathematical errors that resulted in a wrong total being reached.

Counsel while relying on the case of Hon. Obiga Kania versus Wadri Kassiano and Another, HCMA. No. 142 of 2017, submitted that the Court has jurisdiction under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct or rectify errors and omissions by Court in judgments, decrees, orders or errors arising from an accidental slip so as to effect the true intention of the Court.

Counsel also relied on Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act which provides for the inherent powers of Court to make orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice.

#### **Submissions for the Respondent.**

Counsel submitted that the Learned Deputy Registrar totaled up the bill in compliance with the orders or directives of the Learned Appellate Judge. It was further submitted that the amounts were totaled in the presence of both parties. It was also submitted for the Respondent that the circumstances do not warrant rectification of any errors because the Applicant conceded to the total sum of Shs. 23,244,256/= and even made part payments.


Having carefully considered the submissions of the Parties and affidavits in the Application, I shall now proceed to determine this Application.

#### **Determination of Application.**

As rightly submitted by both parties, the Court has jurisdiction under **Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act,** to correct any mathematical errors or mistakes in judgments and orders, or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission.

In *Orient Bank versus Fredrick Zabwe and another, Civil Application No. 17 of 2007*, it was held that the general rule is that the findings of Court on issues of fact and law are final however, the Court may correct an error in its judgement arising from an accidental slip or omission in the Court's judgement. It was further held that the correction is intended to give effect to the Court's intention at the point of delivery of the Judgement.

In *Rosie Naikoba versus National Medical Stores, COA Miscellaneous Application No. 366 of 2020*, while citing the case of *Orient Bank versus Zabwe and another (supra)* with approval, it was held that the intention of the Court at point of delivering the Judgement is important to determine whether the slip rule ought to be applied or not.

It was further observed that Court will apply the slip rule where;

1. The Court is satisfied that it is giving effect to the intention of the Court at the time when the Judgement was given.

2. In the case of a matter that was overlooked, the Court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, as to the order which it would have made had the matter been brought to its attention.

I have carefully perused the bill of costs as taxed and allowed initially by the Learned Deputy Registrar. I have also carefully perused the ruling of the Learned Appellate Judge which had the effect of altering the initial taxed and allowed costs which resulted in a new total.

The Learned Deputy Registrar in executing the orders of the Learned Appellate Judge, reached a total of Shs. 23,244,256/= as the new taxed and allowed costs.

It is my observation that there was an error in the resultant total reached by the Learned Deputy Registrar in executing the Learned Appellate Judge's instructions and that the error largely emanates from mathematical errors on the part of the Learned Deputy Registrar. I come to the above conclusion because on the appeal, the total figure reached by the Learned Deputy


Registrar increased from the initial costs allowed before the Appeal which should not have been the case because on the Appeal some items were struck out. Logically, the total sum arrived at by the Learned Deputy Registrar on appeal ought to have been lower than the initial allowed costs before the Appeal. Also, upon summing up the total with due consideration of findings by the Learned Appellate Judge, it is my observation that the total this Court reaches is far less than the total reached by the Learned Deputy Registrar.

Secondly, I consider it necessary to address the Court's decision with regards to items 109 to item 122.

In considering the bill of costs submitted by the Defendant and 1st Respondent vide HCCS. No.36 of 2014 and HCMA. No.200 of 2016 respectively, the Learned Appellate Judge at Page 22 and 23 of the Ruling, struck out item 8 and items 95 to 107. Items 17,18, 23, 30, 32, 33, 48 and 54 were taxed to Shs. 200,000/= each. Item 24 was taxed to Shs. 400,000/=. Items 109, 120 and 121 were taxed to Shs. 70,000/=. All the other items as taxed and allowed by the Registrar were upheld on the Appeal.

At Paragraph 11 on Page 23 of the ruling, the Learned Judge observes, "*items 109, 120 and 121 are taxed to Ugx 70,000/= as that is found to be enough transport for the Defendant to move from Kampala to Masaka and back at the time"*.

On perusal of the Bill of costs, item 109 to Item 122 each, generally provide for transport costs of the Defendant from Kampala to Masaka and back to Kampala by way of private means between the years of 2013 and 2017. As observed earlier, the Appellate Judge varied items 109, 120 and 121 observing that Shs.70,000/= is sufficient. It is my considered opinion that this Court's intention was to vary all costs on transport from Items 109 to Item 122 to reflect Shs.70,000/= each. It is also my observation that there is no distinguishing factor between items 109, 120 and 121 from the rest of items between item 109 and item 122.

Item 109 was incurred in 2013 while item 121 was incurred in 2017 but both items were varied to Shs.70,000/=, therefore, it cannot be argued that the difference in amounts in items 109, 120 and 121 from the rest of items in the same block can be attributed to the time in which they were incurred. As a result, it is my finding that the only deduction is that this Court intended to vary all items between item 109 to Item 122 to Shs.70,000 for each however, due to an accidential slip the decision only represents items 109, 120 and 121 instead of the items 109 to Item 122. The circumstances therefore warrant a rectification of all items between 109 and item 122 to reflect Shs 70,000 each.


Having considered and applied the above rectifications and summing up the costs, this Court comes to a total sum of Ugx. 13,851,194/= (thirteen million eight hundred fifty one thousand one hundred ninety four shillings) as the taxed and allowed costs rather than the Shs. 23,244,256/= as quoted previously.

Before concluding this matter, it is this Court's humble plea to litigants to always ensure that they submit clear copies of documents which they wish Court to rely on, especially in matters that involve figures because in my opinion, the accuracy of Court's decision is greatly affected by the quality of the documents submitted by litigants. The Court in this case had to labor so much due to the quality of copies submitted by the litigants. Clear documents assist Court in reaching a decision in the shortest time possible without any difficulties.

#### **Conclusion and orders**;

Having observed that the circumstances warrant rectification of the ruling to reflect the real intention of the Court, I hereby issue the following orders;

1. The ruling in HCMA. No.02 of 2018 of this Court is hereby rectified to reflect Ugx.70,000 as the taxed and allowed costs for item 109 to item 122.

2. The rectified total stands at Ugx. 13,851,194/= (thirteen million eight hundred fifty one thousand one hundred ninety four shillings only.) less the 4,000,000/- already settled bringing the amount outstanding to 9,851,194.

3. Each party shall bear their own costs.

#### **I so order**.

Dated and delivered electronically at Masaka this 31st day of May 2023.

**Victoria Nakintu Nkwanga Katamba. Judge.**