Wakilii

Herbert Sekandi t a Land Order Developers v Crane Bank Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 44 of 2007)

High Court · [2007] UGCOMMC 26 · 2007 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal interlocutory ruling on costs in summary suit proceedings
Decision
Leave to appeal granted; interlocutory application allowed

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

Held that where an applicant paid the full debt after suit was filed and the creditor accepted payment, the question whether such payment constituted a compromise under Order 25 rule 6 CPR raised an important and arguable question of law meriting appellate consideration. Leave to appeal granted to determine whether compromise principles affect costs liability.

Outcome

Leave to appeal granted; interlocutory application allowed

Facts

The respondent bank filed Civil Suit No. 732 of 2005 claiming recovery of Ug. Shs 5,359,819 with interest at 36% per annum. After the suit was filed, the applicant paid Ug. Shs 6,000,000 to the respondent, which the respondent accepted. The applicant then applied to strike out the suit on the ground that the debt was fully paid. The respondent's counsel agreed the debt was satisfied but disputed costs. The trial court dismissed the applicant's application and awarded costs to the respondent. The applicant sought leave to appeal, arguing that the payment and acceptance constituted a compromise under Order 25 rule 6 CPR that extinguished the respondent's claim including for costs.

Issues

  1. Whether payment of the debt after suit was filed and acceptance of payment by the creditor constituted a compromise under Order 25 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the applicant raised arguable grounds of appeal meriting serious judicial consideration.
  3. Whether leave to appeal should be granted to determine the effect of post-suit payment on costs liability.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicant granted leave to appeal against the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 0851 of 2005 delivered on 8th September 2006.
  • Costs of this application to abide the outcome of the intended appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Leave to Appeal — Test for Grant — Substantial Question of Law
Leave to appeal will normally be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration and where the applicant has raised a bona fide and arguable case on appeal.
Leave to Appeal — Substantial Question of Law — Definition
A substantial question of law is involved where the point raised is one of general principle decided for the first time or where the question is one upon which further argument and a decision of the superior court would be to the public advantage.
Compromise of Suit — Payment After Filing — Effect on Costs
Where a defendant pays the full debt claimed after suit is filed and the plaintiff accepts payment, the question whether such payment and acceptance constitutes a compromise under Order 25 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules that affects costs liability is an important question of law meriting appellate consideration.
Leave to Appeal — New Points of Law on Appeal
Whether an appellant can on appeal raise a new point of law not argued before the lower court is a matter for the discretion of the appellate court, and leave should be granted if the applicant has raised arguable grounds of appeal, there are serious matters which merit consideration, and the applicant is not guilty of dilatory conduct.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (5)

  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd & Others v Dresdner Bank AG [1972] EA 17
  • Akisoferi Ogola v Aliko Emmanuel Otheino & Anor (1998) VI KALR I
  • Matayo Okum v Francisco Amundhe & Other (1979) HCB 229
  • Makula International v Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor (1982) HCB II
  • Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority v Meera Investment Ltd (HC Misc. Application No. 0359 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Herbert Sekandi t a Land Order Developers v Crane Bank Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 44 of 2007) [2007] UGCommC 26 (22 March 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.