Wakilii

Sarick Construction Ltd and Others v Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 86 & 98 of 2025; Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 83 Applications Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated applications for review of execution orders under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 1(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Decision
Both review applications dismissed; execution orders to stand

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

Applications for review dismissed. The court held that evidence of a letter dated 17 January 2025 from the Ministry of Works requesting advance payment did not constitute new and important evidence justifying review under Order 46 rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, as it postdated the impugned rulings and would not have altered the outcome. Other evidence relied upon was available to applicants at the time of the execution hearings and had been considered by the Deputy Registrar.

Outcome

Both review applications dismissed; execution orders to stand

Facts

The respondent bank obtained execution orders against the applicants for defaulted loan facilities secured by mortgages over properties. The Deputy Registrar issued warrants of delivery of vacant possession and attachment and sale on 9 January 2025. The applicants sought review, arguing new evidence had emerged: a letter dated 17 January 2025 from the Ministry of Works and Transport requesting advance payment of UGX 16 billion for a road construction project in which the 1st applicant was a sub-contractor. The applicants contended this payment, expected within sixty days, would enable them to pay their creditors. The respondent opposed, arguing the evidence was not new, had been considered during the execution hearings, and concerned third parties not the applicants directly.

Issues

  1. Whether there are grounds for review of the Rulings in EMA No. 407 of 2024 and EMA No. 441 of 2024?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2025 dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
  • Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2025 dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — New and Important Evidence — Requirements
For a court to grant review on the ground of discovery of new and important evidence under Order 46 rule 1(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the applicant must prove that the evidence was not within his or her knowledge or could not be produced at the time the decree or order was made, that due diligence was exercised to discover and present the evidence but the applicant was unsuccessful, and that the evidence is relevant such that it might have altered the decision had it been produced earlier.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — New Evidence — Evidence Postdating Impugned Order
Evidence that comes into existence after the delivery of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed does not qualify as newly discovered evidence for purposes of review under Order 46 rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, even where it relates to matters relevant to the case.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Important Evidence — Impact Test
For evidence to warrant review, it must be shown that the new evidence would have had an impact on the decision of the court had it been considered at the time of the original ruling. Evidence concerning third parties without direct proof that it would affect the applicant's obligations does not meet this threshold.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (1)

  • Jacquelyn Amoko v Noah Wasige and 6 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 463 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sarick Construction Ltd and Others v Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 86 & 98 of 2025; Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 83 (20 March 2
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.