Wakilii

Frontier Logistics International (U) Ltd and Nkurunungi Monte Daniels v Absa Bank (U) Limited [2026] UGCOMMC 346

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for leave to appeal against an interlocutory ruling of the same court and for stay of proceedings in the main suit
Decision
Application for leave to appeal and stay of proceedings dismissed; main suit HCCS No. 0119 of 2019 to proceed

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 refused leave to appeal against its earlier ruling declining an order for discovery of a valuation report. An applicant for leave to appeal must show arguable grounds meriting serious judicial consideration or a reasonable chance of success, and must not have been guilty of dilatory conduct; where the intended appeal is from a discretionary order, a stronger case must be made out. Although the applicants were not dilatory, their proposed grounds — that the judge wrongly declined discovery of a valuation report the respondent was under no obligation to retain — did not make out the stronger case required. Leave refused, stay of proceedings consequently unavailable, and the application dismissed with costs in the cause.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal and stay of proceedings dismissed; main suit HCCS No. 0119 of 2019 to proceed

Facts

The respondent bank sued the applicants in HCCS No. 0119 of 2019. The applicants obtained leave to appear and defend and filed a written statement of defence on 2 August 2019, in which they alleged that the respondent had sold security pledged over land at Kibuga Block 4 Plot 890 at an undervalue. In 2025 the applicants filed Miscellaneous Application No. 1755 of 2025 seeking an order that the respondent deliver a copy of the valuation report for that land. That application was dismissed, the court holding in effect that it was the applicants' duty to retain a copy and that the respondent could not be compelled to produce a document that was not its own. The applicants then sought leave to appeal against that ruling and a stay of the main suit. The respondent contended that the intended appeal was from an interlocutory discretionary order, raised no controlling questions, and that a stay was premature since no appeal had been filed; it also noted the discovery application was brought six years after suit and, absent a counterclaim, undervaluation could not form a defence.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants met the conditions for the grant of leave to appeal against the ruling and orders in HCMA No. 1755 of 2025.
  2. Whether the proceedings in HCCS No. 0119 of 2019 should be stayed pending the intended appeal.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Conditions: Arguable Grounds and Reasonable Prospects of Success
An applicant for leave to appeal must show either that the intended appeal has a reasonable chance of success or that there are arguable grounds of appeal meriting serious judicial consideration, and that the applicant has not been guilty of dilatory conduct.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal from Discretionary Interlocutory Orders — Stronger Case Requirement
Where the intended appeal is against an order made in the exercise of judicial discretion, a stronger case must be made out before leave to appeal will be granted, and mere assertion that the judge erred in refusing a discretionary order such as discovery does not suffice.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Proceedings Pending Intended Appeal — Dependence on Grant of Leave
An order staying proceedings pending an intended appeal cannot be granted where leave to appeal has been refused, the stay being dependent on the existence of a competent intended appeal.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers of the Court — Section 98 Civil Procedure Act and Judicial Discretion
The court's inherent power under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act is exercised as a discretion, that is, by determining in accordance with the circumstances what appears just, fair, right, equitable and reasonable.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (7)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Frontier Logistics International (U) Ltd and Nkurunungi Monte Daniels v Absa Bank (U) Limited [2026] UGCommC 346 (8 June 2026)
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.