Wakilii

Hass Petroleum Limited v B.O.K Retail Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1957 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 307 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for consequential order arising from judgment in Civil Suit No. 472 of 2014
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 the application for a consequential order seeking refund of UGX 40,000,000 deposited pursuant to a consent order. The court held that granting such an order would amount to a variance of the earlier judgment in the main suit, which had denied exemplary damages but made no express or implied order for refund of the deposited sum.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant and 1st respondent had entered into a consent order in Miscellaneous Application No. 580/2014 arising from Civil Suit No. 472/2014, whereby the applicant was to deposit UGX 40,000,000 in court as a nominal amount towards the value of stock. The applicant deposited two cheques totalling UGX 40,000,000 in February 2016. Following judgment in the main suit on 30 August 2024, wherein the 1st respondent was awarded only UGX 10,000,000 in general damages and the claim for exemplary damages was denied, the applicant sought a consequential order for refund of the UGX 40,000,000. The 1st respondent opposed the application, raising preliminary objections including that the Attorney General was not a party to the main suit, that a supplementary affidavit was filed without leave, and that the deponent lacked capacity.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should grant a consequential order directing that the Registrar, High Court of Uganda and/or the 2nd respondent refund UGX 40,000,000 to the applicant.

Orders

  • The Attorney General is struck out as a party to this application.
  • The supplementary affidavit in support filed on 19th November 2025 is struck off the court record.
  • The application lacks merit and is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Nature and Determination
A preliminary objection must be based on points of law and must be capable of being determined on the pleadings alone without touching the merits of the case or involving parties in argument on the merits.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Capacity to Depose
Competency to swear an affidavit is pegged to the deponent's ability to depose to the facts of the case based on personal knowledge, not on written authorisation from a party to the litigation. Where a deponent states facts within their knowledge, the affidavit is valid regardless of whether formal written authority was obtained.
Civil Procedure — Consequential Orders — Nature and Scope
A consequential order is an order founded on a claim of the successful party, ancillary or connected with the main relief granted, made in order to work out or give effect to the final judgment or order of the court. Such orders are applied for where implementation of a judgment is impossible except with further orders of court.
Civil Procedure — Consequential Orders — Limits on Grant
A court will not grant a consequential order where doing so would amount to a variance of the earlier judgment. Where a judgment makes no express or implied order on a particular matter, a subsequent application for a consequential order addressing that matter cannot be granted as it would effectively vary the original decision.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (17)

  • Pentecostal Assemblies of God Ltd vs Mukalu and Another
  • Kalibbala & Anor vs Attorney General
  • Water and Environment Network (U) Limited and 2 Others v National Environmental Management Authority and Another (Consolidated Miscellaneous Cause No. 239 of 2020)
  • Crane Bank Limited (in receivership) v Sudhir Ruparelia and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 252 of 2019)
  • Attorney General vs Uluoch [1972] EA 392
  • Mukisa Biscuits vs Western Distributors (1969) EA 696
  • Bank of Uganda and Another v Kaweesi Sulaiman and 26 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1047 of 2022)
  • Baku Raphael Obudra and Another v Attorney General (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Athanansias Kivumbi v Hon. Emmanuel Pinto (Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 1998)
  • Amtorg Trading Corporation vs United States, 71 F. 2d 524
  • Mpower Oil Company Limited v Norvik Hospital Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 934 of 2025 arising from Civil Suit No. 1219 of 2023)
  • Bankone Limited v Simbamanyo Estates Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 540 of 2020)
  • Kabiito (Manager of Spencon Services Limited in Receivership Miscellaneous Application No.1202/2021; Miscellaneous Cause No. 32/2023
  • Kalibbala Vincent and Another v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 70 of 2015)
  • Obayagbona v Obazee [1970]5 SC 247
  • Odofin v Agu [1992] LPELR 2225 (SC); [1992] NWLR (Pt 229) 35
  • B.O.K Limited v Hass Petroleum (High Court Civil Suit No. 472 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hass Petroleum Limited v B.O.K Retail Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1957 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 307 (9 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.