Wakilii

Luitingh Lafras and Anor v Special Services Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 572 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 89 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment and orders in Company Cause No. 11 of 2019 arising from non-compliance with court orders
Decision
Application for review dismissed and original decree upheld

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

Held that an application for review must be grounded on mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence, or sufficient reason analogous to these grounds. The applicants failed to demonstrate any new evidence or error apparent on the record. The application for review was dismissed and the original decree in Company Cause No. 11 of 2019 remained as given.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed and original decree upheld

Facts

The applicants had successfully appealed in Company Cause No. 11 of 2019, obtaining orders that the Registrar General's decision to take back the shareholding of Saracen Uganda Limited (75%) and Special Services Limited (25%) be set aside, and that the company register be rectified. The orders were not complied with. The Registrar General declined to rectify the company register and prevented the company from holding meetings on grounds that shareholding was still in contention under Company Petition No. 1 of 2017. The applicants sought review of the judgment to obtain clarity on shareholding percentages for each individual shareholder and to compel compliance with the original orders. The applicants sought orders that the company be allowed to operate normally without interference from the Registrar General.

Issues

  1. Whether there are grounds for court to grant an order of review.
  2. Whether the applicants are entitled to the orders sought in the application.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Orders in the Decree in Company Cause No. 11 of 2019 stay as given by the court.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error apparent on the face of the record is one which stares one in the face on a substantial point of law where there could reasonably be no two opinions; it must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument to establish; a mere erroneous decision or wrong view does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Review — Sufficient Reason — Meaning and Scope
The expression 'sufficient reason' under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act must be read as meaning a reason of a kind analogous to the discovery of new and important evidence previously overlooked by excusable misfortune, or a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Review — Distinction Between Review and Appeal
An application for review cannot succeed on grounds that would properly form the basis of an appeal; where the court reached a conscious decision on contested matters and exercised discretion in favour of the successful party, any error of law is a ground for appeal, not review.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (7)

  • Abdul Jafar Devij v Ali RMS Devij [1958] EA 558
  • FX Mubuuke v UEB (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 2005)
  • Re- Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd HCB 12
  • FX Mubuuke v UEB (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Joyce Kusulakweguya v Haider Somani and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 40 of 2007)
  • Ojijo Pascal v Geoffrey Brown (Miscellaneous Application No. 758 of 2017)
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2001] 2 EA 173

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.

Luitingh Lafras and Anor v Special Services Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 572 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 89 (15 June 2021)
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.