[2007] UGCommC 28

[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
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Review of Court Orders Cause of Action Error Apparent on Record

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Godfrey Sentongo

Applicant

Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review

  1. 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review of the court's earlier order.
  2. 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.