[2007] UGCommC 28
The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record as required for review under Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant's argument was essentially that the court made a wrong decision based on the material before it, which may be a ground for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] UGCommC 28
- Parties
- Applicant: Godfrey Sentongo; Respondent: Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- HCT-00-CC-MA 59 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Cause of Action, Error Apparent on Record
- 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
Godfrey Sentongo
Applicant
Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review of the court's earlier order.
- 2 Whether the applicant established sufficient grounds for review under Order 46 Rules 1 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record as required for review under Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant's argument was essentially that the court made a wrong decision based on the material before it, which may be a ground for appeal but not for review. The court emphasized that inadequacy or omission in counsel's arguments does not constitute an error on the record. The application was therefore dismissed as it did not meet the threshold for review, and the applicant was advised that the proper remedy would be to appeal the original decision, not to seek review.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
{\rtf1\ansi\deff1\adeflang1025 {\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fprq2\fcharset0 DejaVu Sans;}{\f1\fnil\fprq0\fcharset0 Times{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f2\fnil\fprq0\fcharset0 Times{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f3\fswiss\fprq2\fcharset0 DejaVu Sans;}{\f4\fnil\fprq0\fcharset0 Times{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f5\fswiss\fprq0\fcharset0 Helvetica;}} {\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;} {\stylesheet{\s1\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177\snext1 Normal;} {\s2\sb240\sa120\keepn\rtlch\af1\afs28\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af1\langfe255\hich\f5\fs28\lang7177\loch\f5\fs28\lang7177\sbasedon1\snext3 Heading;} {\s3\sa120\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177\sbasedon1\snext3 Body Text;} {\s4\sa120\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177\sbasedon3\snext4 List;} {\s5\sb120\sa120\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ai\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\f2\fs24\lang7177\i\loch\f2\fs24\lang7177\i\sbasedon1\snext5 caption;} {\s6\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177\sbasedon1\snext6 Index;} {\s7\sb120\sa120\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ai\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\i\loch\fs24\lang7177\i\sbasedon1\snext7 caption;} {\s8\li567\ri567\lin567\rin567\fi0\sa283\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177\sbasedon1\snext8 Quotations;} } {\info{\creatim\yr2007\mo8\dy20\hr16\min29}{\revtim\yr1601\mo1\dy1\hr0\min0}{\printim\yr1601\mo1\dy1\hr0\min0}{\comment StarWriter}{\vern6800}}\deftab709 {\*\pgdsctbl {\pgdsc0\pgdscuse195\pgwsxn11905\pghsxn16837\marglsxn1134\margrsxn1134\margtsxn1134\margbsxn1134\pgdscnxt0 Standard;}} \paperh16837\paperw11905\margl1134\margr1134\margt1134\margb1134\sectd\sbknone\pgwsxn11905\pghsxn16837\marglsxn1134\margrsxn1134\margtsxn1134\margbsxn1134\ftnbj\ftnstart1\ftnrstcont\ftnnar\aenddoc\aftnrstcont\aftnstart1\aftnnrlc \pard\plain \ltrpar\s3\sa120\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 Last Updated: 12 July 2007} \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s3\sa120\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s3\sa120\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 Godfrey Sentongo V Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd- HCT-00-CC-MA-0059-2007 [2007] UGCommC 27 (4 April 2007) \line \line \line THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA\line \line IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT KAMPALA\line \line COMMERCIAL COURT DIVISION\line \line {\ltrch\hich\b\loch\b HCT-00-CC-MA-0059-2007}\line \line (Arising from HCT-00-CC-CS-0454 -2005)\line \line \line Godfrey Sentongo\line Applicant\line Versus\line \line Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd Respondent\line \line {\ltrch\hich\b\loch\b 4 April 2007}\line \line {\ul\ulc0\ltrch\hich\b\loch\b BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE FMS EGONDA-NTENDE}\line \line \line {\ul\ulc0\ltrch\hich\b\loch\b RULING}} \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s8\li567\ri567\lin567\rin567\fi0\sa283\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 1. This application is seeking the review of an earlier order that I made declaring that the plaintiff no.3, now applicant, had not established a cause of action against the defendant/respondent. The application is made under Order 46 Rules 1 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is supported by an affidavit sworn by Joseph Balikuddembe, learned counsel for the applicant. The ground upon which it is made is that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and in the alternative that the applicant may suffer injury and damages, if unheard. \line 2. The affidavit in support is quite short, and the relevant portion thereof is paragraph 3, which I set out in full below. } \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s8\li1134\ri1134\lin1134\rin1134\fi0\sa283\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch \'91}{\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 That having looked at the plaint again, I have discovered that an error apparent on the face of the record was committed occasioned by counsel for the plaintiffs failing to draw the court\'92s attention to the provisions of paragraphs 3(a) (i) and (ii); 4 (f ); 6(a); 7 and 9, copies of which are annexed hereto and highlighted for ease of reference.\'92} \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s8\li567\ri567\lin567\rin567\fi0\sa283\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 3. Mr. Joseph Balikuddembe, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the plaint in this case does disclose a cause of action for the applicant/plaintiff no.3 against the defendant/respondent but that learned counsel for the plaintiff no.3, presuma bly the one who argued that objection when it arose, inadvertently failed to point out to the court the provisions of the plaint which showed that the plaintiff no.3 had a cause of action against the defendant. He then went on to argue that that the plaint in fact does disclose a cause of action against the defendant in respect of the applicant/plaintiff no.3.\line 4. Mr. Masembe Kanyerezi, learned counsel for the respondent, opposed this application, arguing that the applicant had failed to establish that there was a viable ground for review of the order of this court. The applicant had not shown which error was apparent on the face of the record. The error was not mentioned in the application or in the applicant\'92s supporting affidavit.\line 5. It appears to me that the contentions of the applicant substantially are to the effect that this court reached a wrong decision in finding that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action in respect of the applicant/plaintiff no.3 against the defendant. There is no error on t he record as such that the applicant points too. Arguments of counsel, on their own, whether adequate, or inadequate, can hardly, in my view, appear to be errors that are anticipated to lead to review of a court\'92s decision under Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civi l Procedure Rules.\line 6. It appears to me that all that the applicant is raising here is that this court made a wrong decision given the material and information at its disposal, i.e. the plaint, at the time it made the decision sought to be reviewed. In such a case, it would appear to me, the applicant may have a good ground of appeal against that decision, but not a ground for review of the said decision. As was noted in the head note in{\ul\ulc0 }{\ul\ulc0\ltrch\hich\i\b\loch\i\b Abasi Balinda v Frederick Kangwamu and Another [1963] E. A. 557,} a point that may be a good ground of appeal may not be a ground for an application for review and an erroneous view of evidence or of law is not a ground for review though it may be a good ground for an appeal.\line 7. An erroneous decision that the plaint did not dis close a cause of action may be appealable and there may well be good grounds of appeal but such good grounds can hardly form the basis for review of that decision under Order 46 Rules 1 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. I reject this application as it ha s not established any ground upon which the decision sought to be reviewed can be reviewed. } \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s3\sa120\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 {\rtlch \ltrch\loch\f1\fs24\lang7177\i0\b0 It is accordingly dismissed with costs.} \par \pard\plain \ltrpar\s1\ql\rtlch\af3\afs24\lang255\ltrch\dbch\af3\langfe255\hich\fs24\lang7177\loch\fs24\lang7177 \par }