Wakilii

Kare Distribution Limited & Another v Africa Rivers Fund (Miscellaneous Application 2099 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 281 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal against dismissal of Miscellaneous Application No. 1270 of 2023, arising from counterclaim in Civil Suit No. 700 of 2019
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 leave to appeal, holding that the applicants failed to demonstrate grounds meriting serious judicial consideration or a real prospect of success. The applicants sought to raise issues that should have been addressed during the hearing of the counterclaim but waived that opportunity by walking out of court. The application was found to be an abuse of process aimed at delaying judgment in the underlying suit.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

The applicants filed Miscellaneous Application No. 1270 of 2023 seeking various orders including amendment of counterclaim, discovery of bank account statements, a declaration that advertisement of suit property amounted to contempt, and an order stopping sale of mortgaged property. That application was dismissed with costs. The applicants then filed this application for leave to appeal that dismissal, raising issues about the respondent's bank accounts, money lending licence, and the propriety of stopping the sale. During the hearing of the counterclaim in Civil Suit No. 700 of 2019 on 30 October 2023, the 2nd Applicant left the courtroom after his request for the judge's recusal was denied, thereby waiving his right to cross-examine witnesses and present his case on the very issues he now sought to raise on appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants met the criteria for grant of leave to appeal from Miscellaneous Application No. 1270 of 2023.
  2. Whether the applicants raised grounds of appeal that merit serious judicial consideration.
  3. Whether the intended appeal has a real prospect of success.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Grounds for Grant
Leave to appeal will be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration, and where the order was made in the exercise of judicial discretion, a stronger case must be made out.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Prospect of Success
An applicant seeking leave to appeal must show either that the intended appeal has a reasonable chance of success or has arguable grounds of appeal and has not been guilty of dilatory conduct. A real prospect of success means the prospect must be realistic rather than fanciful.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Attempt to Raise Issues Not Pursued at Trial
Where an applicant voluntarily absents himself from the hearing of a matter and thereby waives his opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence on specific issues, he cannot subsequently seek leave to appeal on those very issues as such conduct amounts to abuse of court process.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (10)

  • Sango Bay Estate v Dresdner Bank & Attorney General [1971] EA 17
  • Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 ALL ER 91
  • Kengazi Angella v Meti (U) Ltd
  • Ojara Otto Julius v Okwera Benson
  • Ham Kiggundu & 2 others v Diamond Trust Bank & Anor
  • Musa Sbeity & Anor v Akello Joan & Anor (HCMA No. 249 of 2018)
  • G.M. Combined (U) Ltd v A.K. Detergents (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1994)
  • Alley Route Ltd v UDB (HCMA No. 634 of 2006)
  • Tusker Mattresses (U) Ltd v Royal Care Pharmaceutical Ltd (HCMA No. 258 of 2011)
  • Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (CACA No. 16 of 1996)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kare Distribution Limited & Another v Africa Rivers Fund (Miscellaneous Application 2099 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 281 (7 March 2024)
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.