Forest City Engineering and Technical Services Ltd v A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 2169 of 2025)

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.

Holding

The High Court dismissed an application for review of a Registrar's ruling that had declined to make a garnishee order nisi absolute. The applicant sought review on the ground that its former counsel's negligence in failing to attach invoices constituted sufficient reason under Order 46 rule 1(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Court held that failure to present evidence that was available at the time of the original application does not constitute a ground for review, as the term 'sufficient reason' must be analogous to the discovery of new evidence or error apparent on the face of the record.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed

Facts

The applicant was a judgment creditor following successful litigation in Civil Suit No. 232 of 2012 and Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2016, with an outstanding decretal sum of UGX 496,776,930. The respondent had ceased operations in Uganda with no known assets except alleged unsettled invoices owed by the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development. The applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 2785 of 2023 seeking a garnishee order nisi against the Ministry. The Registrar dismissed the application on grounds that the applicant failed to prove the debt existed and did not adduce the invoices or any proof of their existence. The applicant then filed this review application, arguing that its former counsel had been provided with the invoices but failed to attach them due to negligence, and that counsel's mistake constituted sufficient reason for review.

Issues

1. Whether this application discloses grounds for review?
2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Each party to bear its own costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Judicature Act Cap. 16 s.33
• Judicature Act Cap. 16 s.37
• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.82
• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 46 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 46 rule 8
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 6 rule 28
• Oaths Act

Cases cited (9)

• Uganda Telecom Ltd v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
• Attorney General and Another v James Mark Kamoga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
• Mohammed Allibhai v W.E Bukenya Mukasa and Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
• FX Mubwike v Uganda Electricity Board (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
• Nakivubo Chemists (U) Limited [1979] HCB 12
• Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
• Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd [1979] HCB 12
• Bishop Jacinto Kibuuka v The Uganda Catholic Lawyers Society and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 696 of 2018)
• Okitoi Moses v Okitoi James and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 153 of 2022)

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