Wakilii

Bank of Uganda v Damule & Ors (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 742 OF 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGHCCD 134 · 2016 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of ruling delivered in Miscellaneous Application No. 100 of 2016, which arose from Civil Suit No. 300 of 2015
Decision
Review application dismissed with no costs awarded to either party

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. 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

Application for review dismissed. The court held that while the earlier ruling's failure to give reasons for not awarding costs in the dismissed main suit was an error, the exercise of discretion not to award costs was proper given the suit did not take off, counsel did not incur significant expenses, and costs were not prayed for in the underlying application. Each party to bear its own costs of the review application.

Outcome

Review application dismissed with no costs awarded to either party

Facts

Bank of Uganda brought an application for review of a ruling delivered on 12 July 2016 in Miscellaneous Application No. 100 of 2016. In that earlier application, the court had upheld objections and dismissed the underlying Civil Suit No. 300 of 2015, awarding the applicant costs of the application but remaining silent on costs of the dismissed main suit. Bank of Uganda argued this omission amounted to an error on the face of the record, being a failure to exercise discretion on costs by either granting or refusing them with reasons. The respondents opposed, contending no error existed and that costs of the main suit were not prayed for in the earlier application.

Issues

  1. Whether the omission to award costs in the main suit amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed.
  • No costs awarded to the applicant in the main suit Civil Suit No. 300 of 2015.
  • Each party to bear its own costs of Miscellaneous Application No. 742 of 2016.

Rules and key headnotes

Review — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
Review is a creature of statute and grounds for review include manifest error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence not previously available after due diligence, or any other sufficient reason.
Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition and Scope
An error apparent on the face of the record must be patent and self-evident, capable of being located at a glance without elaborate argument or controversy, and includes obvious errors of law as well as errors of fact.
Costs — Discretion of Court — Failure to Give Reasons
While costs are within the court's discretion, failure to give reasons for not awarding costs where the successful party would ordinarily be entitled to costs following the event constitutes an error, though it may not warrant review if the exercise of discretion was otherwise proper in the circumstances.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Abdul Jafar Devji v Ali RMS Devji (1958) EA 558
  • FX Mubwike v UEB (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Batuk K. Vvyas v Surat Municipality AIR (1953) Bom 133

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Bank of Uganda v Damule & Ors (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 742 OF 2016) [2016] UGHCCD 134 (21 December 2016)
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.