[2020] UGCommC 20

[2020] UGCommC 20

The court found that the retrieval of the personal guarantee agreement after judgment constituted a discovery of a new and important matter of evidence within the meaning of Order 46 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant exercised due diligence but was unable to produce the guarantee at trial due to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] UGCommC 20
Parties
Applicant: Uganda Development Bank Ltd; Respondent: Ringa Enterprises Co. Ltd; Respondent: Patrick Aloysious Okumu–Ringa
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
28 May 2020
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application No. 188 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Costs Order
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
Boniface Wamala, J
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Costs Award, Guarantee Liability, Execution Proceedings
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Review of Judgment Costs Award Guarantee Liability Execution Proceedings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uganda Development Bank Ltd

Applicant

Ringa Enterprises Co. Ltd

Respondent

Patrick Aloysious Okumu–Ringa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the discovery of the personal guarantee agreement constitutes a new and important matter of evidence justifying review of the costs order.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the award of costs to the 2nd respondent set aside and consequential execution proceedings vacated.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the retrieval of the personal guarantee agreement after judgment constituted a discovery of a new and important matter of evidence within the meaning of Order 46 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant exercised due diligence but was unable to produce the guarantee at trial due to misfiling, and its subsequent discovery would have materially affected the court's decision regarding the 2nd respondent's liability and entitlement to costs. The court held that the 2nd respondent, as guarantor, was jointly liable with the principal debtor and that there was no legal requirement for personal notice of default to the guarantor under the contract or the law....

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The order awarding costs to the 2nd respondent in the judgment and decree dated 19th August 2016 is reviewed and set aside and replaced with an order awarding costs in the main suit to the applicant against the 2nd respondent.
  • Both the 1st and 2nd respondents shall pay costs of the main suit to the applicant.