Wakilii

Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited v Odongipou (Miscellaneous Application No. 285 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 27 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of decision in Miscellaneous Cause No. 44 of 2020 under sections 82 and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rules 1, 2 and 8 and Order 52 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Decision
Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondent

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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 Commercial Division dismissed the applicant bank's application for review. The Court held that the applicant failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining the mortgage deed, which it discovered before the ruling but did not present to Court. The application did not meet the strict proof standard required for review on grounds of discovery of new evidence under Order 46 Rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent was the registered proprietor of land comprised in Kyangondo Block 184 Plot 43 at Nsasa, Wakiso District since 20 July 2001. On 4 June 2007, the applicant bank registered a mortgage vide Instrument No. KLA 341728 on the respondent's land without lawful excuse. In September 2020, the respondent's lawyers demanded release of the mortgage. The applicant filed a reply in November 2020 without obtaining the mortgage deed from the Ministry of Lands. The applicant obtained the mortgage deed on 12 February 2021 which showed the mortgage was executed on land in Busiro Block 184 Plot 43, not Kyangondo Block 184 Plot 43. The applicant claimed the land registry erroneously registered the mortgage on the wrong title. Miscellaneous Cause No. 44 of 2020 was determined on 26 February 2021 with the Court awarding the respondent general damages of UGX 140,000,000 and costs. The applicant sought review of that decision.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises grounds for review of the Court's earlier decision in Miscellaneous Cause No. 44 of 2020.

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Review of Judgment — Discovery of New Evidence — Due Diligence Requirement
An applicant seeking review on grounds of discovery of new and important evidence must exercise due diligence and prove by strict proof that the evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced when the decree or order was made.
Review of Judgment — Due Diligence — Failure to Present Evidence Before Ruling
Where an applicant obtains new evidence before the ruling is delivered but fails to inform the Court and instead waits until after an adverse ruling to seek review, the applicant cannot be said to have exercised due diligence and is not entitled to review.
Review of Judgment — Aggrieved Person — Legal Grievance
A person aggrieved for purposes of review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act is one who has been injuriously affected in their rights or has suffered a legal grievance — a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has been an injury or grievance in respect of their property or otherwise.
General Damages — Assessment Principles
In assessment of general damages, courts are guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience that a party may have been put through, and the nature and extent of the breach or injury suffered.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (8)

  • Mohomed Allibhoi v W.E Bukenyo Mukasa & Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Kinyara Sugar Limited v Hajji Kazimbireine Mahmood & 3 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 39 of 2018)
  • Tullow Uganda Limited & Tullow Uganda Operations Pty Limited v Jackson Wabyona & Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 197 of 2017)
  • Ex parte Sidebotham in re Sidebotham [1880] 14 Ch. D 458 at 465
  • Robert Cuassens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 08 of 1999)
  • Stroms Vs Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • Uganda Commercial Bank vs Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Abdulla Jaffer Dewji Vs Ali Raza Mohamedali Sheriff Dewji [1958] EA 558

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.

Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited v Odongipou (Miscellaneous Application No. 285 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 27 (26 April 2022)
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.