[2009] UGCommC 30

[2009] UGCommC 30

The court held that the applicants' liability as guarantors is secondary and accessory to the principal debtor's obligation. Since the principal debtor's liability was still in dispute and subject to determination in the main suit, it was an error apparent on the face of the record to deny the applicants leave to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UGCommC 30
Parties
Applicant: Paul Kasagga Andrew Kasagga; Respondent: Barclays Bank (U) Ltd
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-00-CC-MA 112 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Court Order
Outcome
application for review allowed
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Guarantee Liability, Leave to Defend, Summary Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Review of Judgment Guarantee Liability Leave to Defend Summary Procedure

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Kasagga Andrew Kasagga

Applicant

Barclays Bank (U) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Court Order

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' liability as guarantors could be determined without ascertaining the principal debtor's liability.
  2. 2 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in denying the applicants leave to defend.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were entitled to a review of the court's previous order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants' liability as guarantors is secondary and accessory to the principal debtor's obligation. Since the principal debtor's liability was still in dispute and subject to determination in the main suit, it was an error apparent on the face of the record to deny the applicants leave to defend and to determine their liability for an undetermined sum. The court found that the applicants should have been allowed to defend the suit to ascertain the extent of their liability, if any. Consequently, the previous order was reviewed, and the applicants were granted leave to appear and defend the main suit. Costs were ordered to be in the course of the main suit.

Court Disposition

application for review allowed

Orders

  • The previous order is reviewed.
  • Applicants are allowed to appear and defend Civil Suit No 51 of 2008.