Wakilii

Inyatsi Construction Limited v Absa Bank Uganda Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application 566 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 119 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of a ruling dismissing an application for temporary injunction, arising from a civil suit concerning advance payment guarantees
Decision
Application for review dismissed; bank authorized to proceed with payment of advance payment guarantee to Government

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 High Court dismissed the application for review of a ruling that had dismissed an application for temporary injunction restraining a bank from paying advance payment guarantees. The court held that the applicant could not seek review after filing a notice of appeal, and that the applicant's complaints about the earlier ruling went to its merits rather than showing an error apparent on the face of the record.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; bank authorized to proceed with payment of advance payment guarantee to Government

Facts

Inyatsi Construction Limited entered a contract with the Government of Uganda on 23 November 2022 for construction of Kabuyanda Earth Dam at a cost of UGX 84,574,952,685. The applicant obtained advance payment guarantees from ABSA Bank for USD 2,540,588 and UGX 5,017,158,210 dated 17 February 2023. The applicant terminated the contract on 2 September 2024 citing non-payment. The Government issued demands on ABSA Bank on 2 December 2024 for payment under the advance payment guarantees. The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 535 of 2024 challenging the legality of the guarantees and Miscellaneous Application No. 1257 of 2024 seeking a temporary injunction to restrain payment. Justice Emmanuel Baguma dismissed the injunction application on 20 February 2025. The applicant then filed a notice of appeal on 7 March 2025 and subsequently filed this application for review on 21 July 2025. An administrative interim order was obtained on 22 July 2025 preventing ABSA Bank from paying UGX 4,403,722,357.63 to Government.

Issues

  1. Whether the application meets the criteria for review of the Ruling in High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1257 of 2024 delivered by Hon. Justice Emmanuel Baguma on 20th February 2025.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Administrative Interim Order issued by Hon. Justice Acellam Collins on 22nd July 2025 restraining ABSA Bank Uganda Limited from paying Advance Payment Guarantees No. 096/2023 and No. 098/2023 to the Government is set aside.
  • Miscellaneous Application No. 567 of 2025 for an Interim Injunctive Order is overtaken by events and is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Grounds for Review — Availability of Appeal
Where a party has filed a notice of appeal against a decree or order, that party cannot subsequently apply for review of the same decree or order under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act, as review is only available where an appeal is not the preferred option or where the decision is not appealable.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Distinction from Appeal on Merits
An allegation that a court inappropriately addressed matters not pleaded by the parties goes to the merits of the decision and can only be addressed by way of appeal, not by way of review. The essential question in review proceedings is not the correctness of the decision under review but its validity.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Grounds for Review — Requirements
For an applicant to succeed in an application for review of a judgment or ruling, the applicant must show that either there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or there is discovery of new and important evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced at the time when the decree was passed, or that any other sufficient reason exists.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

  • FX Mubukuke v UEB (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Dan Semwanga and 3 Others v Natembo Kitaka Ruth and 2 Others (Consolidated Civil Appeals No. 226 & 227 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Inyatsi Construction Limited v Absa Bank Uganda Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application 566 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 119 (14 August 2025)
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.