[2017] UGIC 11
The Industrial Court has jurisdiction under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct clerical or mathematical errors in its awards, especially where its own rules are silent on the procedure. The corrections sought by the applicant were supported by affidavit evidence and were not substantively challenged by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] UGIC 11
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Wasswa Kityaba; Respondent: African Field Epidemiology Network (AFENET)
- Court
- Industrial Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 26 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Application for Correction of Clerical Errors Post Award
- Outcome
- application granted
- Legal Topics
- Clerical Error Correction, Award Rectification, Industrial Court Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peter Wasswa Kityaba
Applicant
African Field Epidemiology Network (AFENET)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Correction of Clerical Errors Post Award
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to correct clerical or mathematical errors in its award under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.
- 2 Whether the corrections sought would alter the substance or intention of the original award.
- 3 Whether the application for correction should be entertained despite a pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court has jurisdiction under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct clerical or mathematical errors in its awards, especially where its own rules are silent on the procedure. The corrections sought by the applicant were supported by affidavit evidence and were not substantively challenged by the respondent, who failed to file an affidavit in reply. The corrections do not alter the intention or substance of the original award but merely rectify accidental slips or omissions. The pendency of an appeal does not preclude the court from making such corrections, as they do not affect the respondent's substantive rights of appeal. The application is therefore granted and...
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- The name of the claimant at page 1 in the Award is corrected to read 'WASSWA'.
- On page 6 of the Award paragraph 4 first line is corrected to read 'COUNSEL FOR CLAIMANT'.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
**THE REPUBLIC OF U GANDA**
**IN THE INUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA**
**MISCELLENOUS APPLICATION NO. 26 OF 2017**
**PETER WASSWA KITYABA................................................ APPLICANT**
**VERSUS**
**AFRICAN FIELD EPIDEMIOLOGY NETWORK (AFENET).................................................................................... RESPONDENT**
**RULING**
This application is by Notice of Motion under section 98 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act. It was brought for purposes of correcting what counsel for the applicant called mathematical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission in the Judgement or award of this court delivered on 3/2/2017. The application also seeks for costs of the same.
The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant to the effect that there were clerical or mathematical errors which required correction by this Court and the errors were itemized under paragraphs (a)-(g) of the affidavit.
Mr. J. Mudde appeared for the applicant while Mr. Sebugenyi and Mr. Muwawu appeared for the respondent. In his submission Mr. Mudde impressed upon Court the fact that the mentioned errors were clerical errors which when corrected would not change the intention of this Court as expounded in the Award delivered on 3/2/2017. He relied on the authority of **FANG MIN VS DR. KAIJUKA MUTABAZI SUPREME COURT APPLICATION 06/2009**
Mr. Sebugenyi for the respondent argued strongly that this Court having delivered its Award ought to let the process of appeal take its course as original as it was delivered so as to allow the respondent exercise fully its right of appeal against all errors of fact and of law including those pointed out by the applicant
He argued that this Court ought to apply its own rules provided for in the Labour Disputes(arbitration and settlement) Industrial civil procedure rules instead of applying rules for the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court cited by counsel for the applicant. He was of the contention that the corrections ought to be made after the appeal since the applicant filed the application after the respondent had filed an appeal.
We have noted that there was no affidavit in reply in opposition to the affidavit of the applicant. This means that although we appreciate the arguments of counsel for the respondent, the said arguments are like a human body without a spinal code since they have no basis.
The submission of the applicant that the errors were clerical and that their correction would not change the meaning of the Award was based on the affidavit sworn by the applicant. Nothing in the submission of counsel for the respondent watered down this submission. Instead the respondent argued generally about the right of the respondent to appeal against the decision of this Court. We expected counsel to show Court by affidavit or otherwise how correction of the errors would by any stretch of imagination change the Award. We expected the respondent to react to each of the itemized clerical errors pointed out in the affidavit of the applicant. We do not accept the contention of counsel for the respondent that this Court should not rely on the Civil Procedure Act simply because it has its own rules of procedure. As we have held before (and we expect every advocate to appreciate) where there is a lacuna in the rules of this Court the Court is at liberty to apply the civil procedure rules or in accordance with section 40 of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act the court may regulate its own procedure. This being the case we do not see any harm in adopting section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act so as to enable the Court correct clerical errors that may arise in an Award.
It is our considered opinion that the respondent having failed to rebut the submission of the applicant that there were clerical errors capable of being corrected by this Court without altering the decision of Court, We hold that in accordance with the authority of FANG MIN VS DR. KAIJUKA(supra) the application is granted and as a consequence the following corrections in the said Award are hereby made:
1. The name of the claimant at page 1 in the Award is hereby corrected to read **"WASSWA**" 2. On page 6 of the Award paragraph 4 first line is corrected to **read "COUNSEL FOR CLAIMANT**" 3. on page 14 of the Award item(6) the figure in the second last sentence is corrected to read**" 5 1/2 "** years 4. on page 14 of the Award item (7) second line the figure is corrected to **read "24% per annum"** 5. on page 14 item 7(2) the figure is corrected to **read" 14,068USD"** 6. (F) On page 15 item 7 the figure is corrected to **read" 24% per annum"** 7. (G) On page 15 item 8 the words "Aug 2015" are corrected to **read "Aug 2017".**
We are in agreement with counsel for the respondent that this application does not call for an order for costs being an application to correct clerical errors to which none of the parties contributed.
**DATED: 10TH MARCH 2017**