Wakilii

Al-Shafi Investment group LLC v Ahmed Darwish & Anor (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 901 OF 2017)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 205 · 2017 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment dismissing Civil Suit No. 218 of 2017 on grounds of error apparent on the face of the record
Decision
Original judgment set aside; suit remitted for hearing on merit

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 4 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations steady — 6 citing cases on record, 5 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court granted the application for review, finding that the original judgment erroneously stated that no criminal judgment from Abu Dhabi existed when such judgment had been attached to the pleadings. The court held that the Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal judgment was not conclusive in Uganda under Section 9(f) of the Civil Procedure Act because it sustained a claim founded on conduct that breaches Ugandan law — specifically, the illegal issuance of a postdated cheque as security, contrary to the Bills of Exchange Act and the Penal Code Act.

Outcome

Original judgment set aside; suit remitted for hearing on merit

Facts

The applicant had brought Civil Suit No. 218 of 2017 against the respondent over a dishonoured cheque drawn on the Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank. The respondent had been convicted in Abu Dhabi for issuing a false cheque, but subsequently obtained a civil judgment from the Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal holding that the cheque was issued as security and not intended to be cashed. The High Court dismissed the applicant's suit, apparently finding no evidence of the criminal conviction. The applicant applied for review under Order 46 CPR, contending that the court erred in stating that no criminal judgment existed when it had been attached to the pleadings. The respondent opposed, arguing that only a first instance judgment existed and had been stayed pending appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the dismissal of HCCS No. 218 of 2017 contained an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review.
  2. Whether a foreign judgment that sustains a claim founded on a breach of Ugandan law can be conclusive under Section 9(f) of the Civil Procedure Act.
  3. Whether a cheque issued as security or deposit, without intention that it be cashed, constitutes a lawful defence to a claim on a dishonoured cheque under Ugandan law.

Orders

  • Application for review granted.
  • The judgment of the court in HCCS No. 218 of 2017 reviewed and set aside.
  • HCCS No. 218 of 2017 set down for hearing on merit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Test
An error apparent on the face of record is an evident error which does not require extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. It is an error so manifest and clear that no court would permit it to remain on the record.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Distinction from Erroneous Decision
There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by a higher forum; an error apparent on the face of record can only be corrected by the exercise of the review jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure — Foreign Judgments — Recognition and Enforcement — Section 9(f) Civil Procedure Act
A foreign judgment shall not be conclusive where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in Uganda.
Banking & Finance — Bills of Exchange — Cheques — Nature and Requirements
A cheque is by its very nature unconditional. Under no circumstances can it be legally issued on any condition, including one that it should serve as security or as a deposit. Such issuance is illegal under the Bills of Exchange Act.
Commercial Law — Negotiable Instruments — Cheques as Security — Illegality of Practice
The practice among businessmen and women of issuing cheques as security with instructions that they should not be banked or negotiated should be strongly discouraged because it goes against the very nature of such negotiable instruments. A trade custom or practice that purports to turn the law on its head is a blatant illegality.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Penal Code — Issuing False Cheques
It is an offence under Section 385(1)(b) of the Penal Code Act to issue a cheque knowing that one does not have funds to meet the payment ordered in one's account. The drawer of a cheque is presumed to know the implications of his or her action and should be held liable for it.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Re-Nakivubo Chemist (U) Ltd (1979) HCB 12
  • Attorney General and Others v Boniface Byanyima (HCMA No. 1789 of 2000)
  • Levi Outa v Uganda Transport Company [1995] HCB 340
  • Sembule Investments Ltd v Uganda Baati Ltd (HCMA No. 664 of 2009) [2011] UGCommC
  • Dembe Trading Enterprises v Bidco (U) Ltd (HCMA No. 28 of 2008)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Al-Shafi Investment group LLC v Ahmed Darwish & Anor (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 901 OF 2017) [2017] UGHCCD 205 (13 July 2017)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.