[2002] UGHC 98

[2002] UGHC 98

The court found that the applicant failed to provide new evidence or any sufficient cause to warrant setting aside the consent order. The affidavit in support did not annex evidence of the alleged payments, and the applicant did not file a further affidavit to controvert the respondent's reply. The court also noted...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] UGHC 98
Parties
Applicant: Pavement Civil Works Ltd; Respondent: Andrew Kirungi; Respondent: Kahwa A. B. Martin
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Misc.Aoo.No.416 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
Okumu Wengi, J
Legal Topics
Review of Consents, Loan Repayment Disputes, Summary Suit Decrees
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Review of Consents Loan Repayment Disputes Summary Suit Decrees

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pavement Civil Works Ltd

Applicant

Andrew Kirungi

Respondent

Kahwa A. B. Martin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the consent order in Civil Suit No. 147 of 2002 should be set aside on grounds that the loan was repaid.
  2. 2 Whether there is new evidence or matter to warrant review of the consent order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide new evidence or any sufficient cause to warrant setting aside the consent order. The affidavit in support did not annex evidence of the alleged payments, and the applicant did not file a further affidavit to controvert the respondent's reply. The court also noted that the application was procedurally defective, as review was sought under the wrong order. The decree in the summary suit still subsisted and had not been set aside or shown to have been satisfied. Therefore, the application was dismissed as misconceived and lacking merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent/plaintiff.