[2000] UGSC 21

[2000] UGSC 21

The Supreme Court dismissed the application, holding that the alleged error regarding the absence of the common seal on the mortgage document (Exh. P9) was not an accidental slip or omission within the meaning of the slip rule, but rather a consequence of the evidence presented at trial. The Court found that Exh. P9, as produced in evidence, did not bear the seal, and any discrepancy with the original was a matter for the trial court, not for correction on appeal. The Court reaffirmed that it cannot admit additional evidence on second appeal under Rule 29(1), and that its inherent powers do not extend to correcting findings based on evidence not before it. The Court modified its previous...

Citation
[2000] UGSC 21
Parties
Applicant: Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust; Respondent: General Parts (U) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
18 October 2000
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2000
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application to Recall and Correct Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed with costs (4/5 to respondent)
Judges
Oder, JSC
Legal Topics
Slip Rule Application, Mortgage Execution, Admission of Additional Evidence, Inherent Powers of Court, Res Judicata Effect, Costs Award
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Slip Rule Application Mortgage Execution Admission of Additional Evidence Inherent Powers of Court Res Judicata Effect Costs Award

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust

Applicant

General Parts (U) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Application to Recall and Correct Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court can recall and correct its judgment under the slip rule or inherent powers where alleged errors relate to matters not in evidence at trial.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a common seal on the mortgage document (Exh. P9) constituted an error justifying correction of the judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the Court can admit additional evidence on second appeal contrary to Rule 29(1) of the Supreme Court Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the application, holding that the alleged error regarding the absence of the common seal on the mortgage document (Exh. P9) was not an accidental slip or omission within the meaning of the slip rule, but rather a consequence of the evidence presented at trial. The Court found that Exh. P9, as produced in evidence, did not bear the seal, and any discrepancy with the original was a matter for the trial court, not for correction on appeal. The Court reaffirmed that it cannot admit additional evidence on second appeal under Rule 29(1), and that its inherent powers do not extend to correcting findings based on evidence not before it. The Court modified its previous...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs (4/5 to respondent)

Orders

  • The application to recall and correct the judgment is dismissed.
  • The respondent is awarded 4/5 of the costs of the application.