Wakilii

Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal 8 of 1998)

Supreme Court · [1999] UGSC 1 · 1999 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from the Court of Appeal, which had reversed a High Court order setting aside dismissal of a suit and reinstating it
Decision
Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal orders set aside and the High Court order reinstating the suit restored for trial on the merits

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 3 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.

Good law Followed in 3 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 35 citing cases on record, 19 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.
Judicial journey

Appeal & case history

2 linked decisions

Follow this matter from the decision below through each appellate court.

Reversed The decision below was overturned.
See the court’s words
“plaintiffs lack of funds, but a judge of the trial court had on that account set aside the dismissal.”
Supreme Court This decision
Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal 8 of 1998) [1999] UGSC 1 (5 October 1999)
[1999] UGSC 1
Supreme Court decision located in the Wakilii corpus. Linked from court records and operative language in the judgments.

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 Supreme Court allowed the second appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal failed in its duty as a first appellate court to re-evaluate the affidavit evidence supporting reinstatement of the dismissed suit. The appellant's failure to deposit cash security for costs within time, caused by counsel's mistaken belief that a bank guarantee would suffice and by bureaucratic delays in transferring money internationally from Spain, amounted to "sufficient cause" under Order 23 rule 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. A mistake by counsel should not be visited on the litigant. The trial judge had properly exercised her discretion, and the Court of Appeal wrongly interfered with it.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal orders set aside and the High Court order reinstating the suit restored for trial on the merits

Facts

In 1989 the appellant, a Spanish bank, lent the Ugandan government one million US dollars under a loan agreement guaranteed by the respondent. After the government defaulted, the appellant sued both the government and the respondent for recovery. The suit against the government was dismissed as time-barred but was allowed to proceed against the respondent. On the respondent's application, the High Court ordered the appellant to deposit shs.20,000,000 in cash as security for costs within thirty days. The appellant instead lodged a bank guarantee from Tropical Africa Bank Ltd, which the Registrar rejected for not being cash, and the suit was dismissed. The appellant applied to set aside the dismissal, relying on counsel's mistaken belief that a guarantee would suffice and on bureaucratic delays in transferring money from Spain. The appellant had also filed an application for extension of time, which was pending when the suit was dismissed. The High Court reinstated the suit; the Court of Appeal reversed, holding no sufficient cause was shown.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal failed in its duty as a first appellate court to re-appraise and re-evaluate the affidavit evidence supporting reinstatement of the suit.
  2. Whether the circumstances of the case amounted to "sufficient cause" under Order 23 rule 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules for setting aside the dismissal of the suit.
  3. Whether a mistaken belief on the part of counsel that a bank guarantee would suffice as security for costs should be visited on the litigant.
  4. Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly interfered with the trial judge's exercise of discretion in reinstating the suit.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs in the Supreme Court and in the Court of Appeal.
  • Orders of the Court of Appeal set aside.
  • High Court orders setting aside the dismissal and reinstating the suit for trial restored.
  • Costs of the application in the High Court awarded to the respondent as thrown-away costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Duty of First Appellate Court to Re-evaluate Evidence
A first appellate court has a duty to re-appraise and re-evaluate the evidence, including affidavit evidence as well as oral testimony, and to reach its own conclusion; the exception relating to the manner and demeanour of witnesses does not arise with affidavit evidence.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Setting Aside Dismissal — "Sufficient Cause" under Order 23 rule 2(2)
A suit dismissed for failure to furnish security for costs may be reinstated under Order 23 rule 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules where the plaintiff proves it was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing the security within the time allowed; the words "sufficient cause" are not confined to special grounds and confer an unfettered discretion to be exercised on the facts of each case.
Civil Procedure — Mistake of Counsel — Whether Visited on the Litigant
A mistake, error or oversight by counsel — such as a mistaken belief that a bank guarantee would suffice in place of an ordered cash deposit — should not ordinarily be visited on an otherwise blameless litigant, and may amount to sufficient cause for setting aside a dismissal, especially where the litigant showed an intention to comply.
Civil Procedure — Appellate Interference with Discretion of Trial Court
An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's exercise of discretion unless the trial court misdirected itself or acted on wrong principles and thereby arrived at a wrong decision, or it is manifest that the trial court was clearly wrong and injustice resulted; a mere difference of opinion is insufficient.
Evidence — Affidavits — Affidavit by Counsel Failing to Disclose Means of Knowledge
An affidavit sworn by counsel for a party which fails to disclose the deponent's means of knowledge or grounds of belief, and which fails to distinguish matters of personal knowledge from matters of information and belief, is defective and cannot be relied on; it is undesirable for counsel to act as a witness for his client on contentious technical matters.
Civil Procedure — Brevity of Ruling — Reasons for Decision
While a trial court should give reasons for its decision, the brevity of a ruling exercising discretion is not in itself an error causing a miscarriage of justice where the trial judge had before her, and is taken to have considered, all the affidavits and submissions of both parties.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (29)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Mbogo and Another v Shah (1968) EA 93
  • Patrick Njoroge Nguri v Livingstone Wanji Muthuri (1955) 22 EACA 43
  • Shabir Din v Ram Prakash Arand (1955) 22 EACA 48
  • Caspair Ltd v Harry Gandy (1962) EA 414
  • Uganda Development Bank v National Insurance Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1995)
  • Re Helsby (1894) 1 QB 742
  • Coles v Ravenshear (1907) 1 KB 1
  • Baker v Faber (1908) WN 9
  • Kevorkian v Burney (1937) All ER 97
  • Gatti v Shoosmith (1939) 3 All ER 916
  • Essaji v Solanki (1968) EA 218
  • Pandya v R (1957) EA 336
  • Okeno v Republic (1972) EA 32
  • Peters v Sunday Post Ltd (1958) EA 423
  • Bogere Moses and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Bogere Charles v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1998)
  • Charles Bitwire v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1985)
  • Kairu v Uganda [1978] HCB 123
  • L.A.M Hussein v G.I Kakiiza and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 30 of 1994)
  • Shiv Construction Co v Endesha Enterprises Ltd (Civil Application No. 15 of 1992)
  • Clouds 10 Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank Ltd (Civil Application No. 35 of 1992)
  • Delia Almeida v Drule Almeida (Civil Application No. 15 of 1990)
  • Haji Nurdin Matovu v Ben Kiwanuka (Civil Application No. 12 of 1991)
  • Alexander Jo Okello v Kavondo & Co Advocates (Civil Application No. 17 of 1996)
  • Bray v R J Bray (1957) EA 302
  • Eltafick Trading Co. v. Libyan Arab (U) Bank and Another H.C.C.S. No.138 of 1985 (Unreported)
  • G.M Combined (U) Ltd and Others v A.K. Detergents (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 760 of 1997)
  • Shah v Allu Osman (1947) 14 EACA 45

Cases citing this judgment (30)

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.

Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal 8 of 1998) [1999] UGSC 1 (5 October 1999)
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.