Wakilii

Blue Wave Beverages Limited 2 Others v Kiiza (Receiver Manager) Another [2025] UGCOMMC 4

High Court · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of ruling delivered in Miscellaneous Cause No. 95 of 2023 under Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Decision
Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondents

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

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 court held that an application for review cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. When a party is dissatisfied with a decision on the merits of procedural matters such as grant of adjournments or adequacy of preparation time, the proper recourse is appeal, not review. Review is limited to correcting patent errors or grave irregularities, not re-examining conclusions reached after consideration of evidence and submissions. The applicants' obstinacy in ceding possession did not constitute an arbitrable dispute. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

SFC Finance Limited advanced USD 3,500,000 to Blue Wave Beverages Limited under a facility agreement dated 10 March 2020, secured by a debenture over the company's assets. Following default, the lender demanded repayment of USD 4,426,074 as at 22 December 2022 and appointed Lilian Kiiza as Receiver on 9 August 2023. When the Receiver attempted to take possession of the factory premises at Luzira, the applicants initially permitted joint guards but later refused access. The respondents filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 95 of 2023 seeking an order for possession. On 4 December 2023, the court ordered the applicants to deliver possession of the charged property and hand over all company documents to the Receiver. The applicants then sought review of that ruling on grounds of error apparent on the face of the record, arguing that the dispute was subject to an arbitration clause and that they were denied a fair hearing when their counsel was refused an adjournment.

Issues

  1. Whether the ruling in Miscellaneous Cause No. 95 of 2023 contained an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
  2. Whether the dispute between the parties was subject to an arbitration clause requiring referral to arbitration rather than court adjudication.
  3. Whether the applicants were denied a fair hearing when counsel was refused an adjournment and granted only a one-hour stand-over to prepare.

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Distinction from Appeal
When a party is dissatisfied with a decision taken on the merits of a procedural or substantive matter and is not satisfied with the reasoning employed by the court in coming to the decision, recourse is to appeal not review. Review is not directed at correcting a decision on the merits but is aimed at the maintenance of legality in light of grave irregularities or illegalities occurring during the course of proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition and Scope
An error apparent on the face of the record is one which strikes one on mere looking at the record and does not require any long drawn process of reasoning. It must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument to be established. An error which has to be established by reasoning or on points where there may be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Review — Limited Purpose — Not Appeal in Disguise
An application for review has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. A review may be granted to correct an apparent error or omission but may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits, which is the province of an appellate court. The court exercising the power of review cannot sit in appeal over its own decision.
Arbitration — Existence of Dispute — Objective Determination Required
For purposes of submission to arbitration, a dispute must relate to clearly identified issues with specific consequences. The existence of a dispute presupposes communication between parties expressing clearly opposing views concerning contractual obligations. It is not sufficient for one party to assert that a dispute exists; the matter must be objectively determined. Mere obstinacy in ceding possession does not constitute an arbitrable dispute.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (1)

  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2001] 2 EA 173

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Blue Wave Beverages Limited 2 Others v Kiiza (Receiver Manager) Another 2025 UGCommC 4 (14 January 2025)
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.