[2008] UGCommC 56

[2008] UGCommC 56

The court found that the ex-parte order of 21st October 2008 was made in error, as the respondent had already received rent from Tadashi (U) Ltd for the period in question, and requiring the applicant to pay US$10,000 per month would result in unjust enrichment. The confusion over the listing of two applications...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] UGCommC 56
Parties
Applicant: Hamza Motors (U) Ltd; Respondent: Damanico Limited
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 602 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application_granted
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Mistake Apparent on Record, Unjust Enrichment, Sublease Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Review of Court Orders Mistake Apparent on Record Unjust Enrichment Sublease Disputes

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamza Motors (U) Ltd

Applicant

Damanico Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the ex-parte order of 21st October 2008 was made in error apparent on the face of the record.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient reason or new evidence to warrant review under Order 46 Rule 1(a) & (b).
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is entitled to receive double rent, amounting to unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the ex-parte order of 21st October 2008 was made in error, as the respondent had already received rent from Tadashi (U) Ltd for the period in question, and requiring the applicant to pay US$10,000 per month would result in unjust enrichment. The confusion over the listing of two applications provided sufficient reason for the applicant's absence and justified the review. The affidavit and submissions presented by the respondent misled the court into making the erroneous order. The court distinguished the cited cases, noting that the present matter involved a clear mistake apparent on the record and not merely a reassessment of costs or a consent judgment. The order...

Court Disposition

application_granted

Orders

  • The application for review is granted with costs.
  • The order of 21st October 2008 is amended to rescind the figure of US$10,000 and substitute it with the current rent of US$2,300 plus VAT.