Wakilii

Godfrey Sentongo v Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 59 of 2007)

High Court · [2007] UGCOMMC 28 · 2007 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of an earlier order dismissing plaintiff no.3's claim for failure to establish cause of action
Decision
Review application dismissed; earlier order stands

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 dismissed an application for review of an earlier order. The applicant argued that the plaint did disclose a cause of action but counsel failed to draw the court's attention to relevant provisions. The court held that an erroneous decision on whether a plaint discloses a cause of action is a ground for appeal, not review. Inadequate arguments by counsel do not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Review application dismissed; earlier order stands

Facts

The applicant, originally plaintiff no.3 in main suit HCT-00-CC-CS-0454-2005, had been found by the court to have failed to establish a cause of action against the defendant/respondent. The applicant sought review of that order under Order 46 Rules 1 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, arguing that there was an error apparent on the face of the record. The applicant contended that counsel for the plaintiff no.3 had inadvertently failed to draw the court's attention to specific provisions of the plaint (paragraphs 3(a)(i) and (ii); 4(f); 6(a); 7 and 9) which allegedly showed a cause of action existed. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that no error apparent on the face of the record had been established.

Issues

  1. Whether the court made an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether inadequate arguments by counsel constitute a ground for review of a court decision.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Orders — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Distinction from Grounds of Appeal
An erroneous view of evidence or of law is not a ground for review under Order 46 Rules 1 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, though it may constitute a good ground for appeal.
Civil Procedure — Review of Orders — Inadequate Arguments by Counsel — Not an Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
Arguments of counsel, whether adequate or inadequate, cannot constitute errors apparent on the face of the record that would warrant review of a court's decision under Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Review versus Appeal — Wrong Decision on Cause of Action
Where an applicant contends that the court reached a wrong decision in finding that a plaint did not disclose a cause of action, the appropriate remedy is appeal, not review, as such a contention does not establish an error apparent on the face of the record.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Abasi Balinda v Frederick Kangwamu and Another [1963] EA 557

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Godfrey Sentongo v Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 59 of 2007) [2007] UGCommC 28 (3 April 2007)
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.