Samuel Okurut and Others v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2168 of 2025)
Observed later treatment
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
An application for review is barred where a party has already filed an appeal against the same ruling. The court found that the applicants had filed Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 501 of 2024 on 18 June 2024, before filing the review application on 25 September 2025. Once an appeal is lodged, there is no right to seek review of the judgment on appeal. The application was struck out as incompetent under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Outcome
Application struck out with costs to the Respondent
Facts
The respondent bank filed Originating Summons No. 15 of 2023 seeking orders to foreclose and sell mortgaged property to recover UGX 13,955,652,553 owed by the applicants arising from loan facilities. The court delivered its ruling on 24 June 2024. The applicants filed a notice of appeal on 19 June 2024 and Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 501 of 2024 on 18 June 2024. On 25 September 2025, the applicants filed this review application under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act, claiming new evidence from an audit report completed in June 2025 showing unauthorized debits totaling UGX 6,245,796,801 and other irregularities. The respondent opposed, arguing the applicants had always admitted indebtedness and had access to account statements, and that the application was brought in bad faith with inordinate delay after filing an appeal.
Issues
- Whether this application discloses grounds for review?
- Whether the Applicants preferred an appeal against the ruling in Originating Summons No. 15 of 2023?
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- Application struck out as incompetent.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
Cases cited (2)
- Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
- DAJ Communications Ltd v David Kihika (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2023)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.