Wakilii

Southern Union Insurance Brokers Limited and Others v NIKO Insurance Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 568 of 2022)

High Court · [2020] UGCOMMC 167 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal from an order dismissing an application for review of judgment in a breach of contract suit
Decision
Application for leave to appeal dismissed

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 an application for leave to appeal against an order dismissing a review application. The court held that an order dismissing an application for review is not among the orders from which appeals lie as of right under Order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules, requiring leave to appeal. Applying the test for granting leave, the court found no grounds of appeal meriting serious judicial consideration, no reasonable chance of success, and no arguable grounds of appeal. The intended appeal arguments were not supported by the record. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Facts

The respondent sued the applicants for recovery of shs. 156,225,632 being insurance premiums obtained by the 1st applicant insurance brokerage company through its directors but never accounted for. Judgment was entered on 1 October 2021 finding the applicants jointly and severally liable. The applicants filed a review application on grounds of mistake apparent on the record and new evidence, which was dismissed on 28 February 2022. The applicants then sought leave to appeal the dismissal of the review application, intending to argue that the trial judge erred in lifting the corporate veil to hold the directors personally liable, and that the judge wrongly found the review application was not controverted when it was counsel's mistake not to tender evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether leave to appeal should be granted against an order dismissing an application for review.
  2. Whether the intended grounds of appeal merit serious judicial consideration.
  3. Whether the applicants have a reasonable prospect of success on appeal or have demonstrated arguable grounds without dilatory conduct.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Orders from which appeals do not lie as of right
An order dismissing an application for review is not among the orders listed in Order 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules from which appeals lie as of right, and therefore requires leave of the court to appeal.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Test for granting leave
Leave to appeal will normally be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration, or where the intended appeal has a reasonable chance of success or there are arguable grounds of appeal and the applicant has not been guilty of dilatory conduct. The court will only refuse leave if satisfied that the applicant has no realistic prospects of succeeding on appeal.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Factors to consider
In determining whether to grant leave to appeal, the court must identify and assess the seriousness and significance of the points sought to be raised on appeal, consider whether the points relate to a significant misdirection on law or fact, and have regard to all the circumstances of the case including the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, the need to enforce compliance with rules, the promptness of the application, and any delay.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (9)

  • Hamam Singh Bhogal T/a Hamam Singh & Co v Jadva Karsan (1953) 20 EACA 17
  • Baku Raphael v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Attorney General v Shah (No. 4) [1971] EA 50
  • Sango Bay Estates Limited and others v Dresdner Bank [1992] EA 17
  • GM Combined (U) Ltd v AK Detergents (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1994)
  • Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 16 of 1996)
  • Kayaga v Waligo (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 80 of 2012)
  • GM Combined v AK Detergents (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1994)
  • Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Southern Union Insurance Brokers Limited and Others v NIKO Insurance Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 568 of 2022) [2020] UGCommC 167 (11 January 2020)
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.