[2023] UGHCLD 145

### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

### (LAND DIVISION)

### **CIVIL SUIT NO.256 OF 2018**

SWATT SECURITY LIMITED::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

#### **VERSUS**

1. GENAGRI PLANTATIONS

2. ATTORNEY GENERAL

3. COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

## Before Hon. Justice Alexandra Nkonge Rugadya.

# Correction of order No. 11 under sections 98 and 99 of the CPA.

This court has noted an error in its judgment delivered in respect of this suit on....

The error was made in relation to the judgment and orders No. 11 and 13 of the judgment which order read-

11. mesne profits of Ugx. 700,000,000/= shall be payable by the $2^{nd}$ & $3^rd$ defendants to the $1^st$ defendant/counterclaimant as mesne profits that the said company would have earned in profits from 2016 but for the actions of the defendants.

12.

# 13. General damages of Ugx. 50,000,000/=

The errors were also brought to the attention of court by the 3^rd defendant through their letter dated 15^th May 2023 requesting that that the said errors be corrected under the slip rule.

Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act cap.71 allows this court to exercise its inherent powers to make orders it deems necessary to meet the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of court process.

Similarly, **Section 99** caters for the correction/rectification of errors or omissions by court in any judgments, orders, decrees or error arising in them from accidental slip to give effect to the true and express intention of court. It provides that;

aslorg

'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.'

The supreme court in the case of *Uganda Development Bank ltd versus Oil Sees* (U) Ltd Miscellaneous Application No.15 of 1997 stated that court has inherent jurisdiction to recall its judgement in order to give effect to its manifest intention or what it clearly would have been the intention of court had some matter not been inadvertently omitted. Court further stated that:

'A slip order will only be made where the court is fully satisfied that it is giving effect to the intention of the court at the time when the judgment was given or in the case of a matter which was overlooked. where it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, as to the order which it would have made had the matter been brought to its attention. The applicant must therefore prove that there was a clerical or arithmetic mistake in the judgment or any error arising from an accidental or omission which did not give effect to the intention of court when it passed the judgment.'

In the present case, the court by granting mesne profits against the $2^{nd}$ & $3^{rd}$ defendants was an error that was overlooked by this court. The intention of court was to ensure that the $2^{nd}$ and $3^{rd}$ defendants make amends for their involvement in creating another certificate of title while there was an existing title.

Accordingly, the judgment and orders of this court are amended as below:

- 1. On page 38 line 11, the sum of Ugx $100,000,000/$ = awarded as mesne profits to substituted by Ugx. 50,000,000/= to be paid to the $1^{st}$ defendant by the plaintiff; - 2. On page 39 line 2, the sum of Ugx. $50,000,000/=$ awarded as damages to the $1^{st}$ defendant, to be substituted with 'Ugx. 700,000,000/= as a fair amount of compensation to the $1^{st}$ defendant, to be paid by the $2^{nd}$ & $3^{rd}$ defendants':

Julay &

- 3. On page 40, in respect of Order No.11, to correspond with item 2 above, by deleting the said order and replacing it with an award of compensation of Ugx. 700,000,000/=, payable by the $2^{nd}$ & $3^{rd}$ defendants to the $1$ ^st defendant/counterclaimant. - 4. On page 40, in respect of Order 13, to correspond with item 1 above, by deleting that order and replacing it with an order to the plaintiff company requiring it to pay mesne profits of Ugx. 50,000,000/= to the 1^st defendant.

I so order.

llabor

Alexandra Nkonge Rugadya Judge. 7^th August 2023.

Deliveed by earl<br> Deliveed by earl<br> $\int \frac{1}{7} |s| 2023$