Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Vegol Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2864 of 2023)
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
Application dismissed. The court held that a party found in contempt of court by disobeying an existing order cannot be heard in a related cause or application until it has purged itself of that contempt. The bank's application to set aside the Garnishee Order Absolute and contempt orders was filed with inordinate delay (over nine months) and while the bank remained in contempt. The court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 98 CPA as equity does not aid parties who fail to act with vigilance.
Outcome
Application to set aside Garnishee Order Absolute and contempt orders dismissed; Applicant bank remains in contempt and ordered to pay costs
Facts
Vegol Limited obtained a default judgment against Sanjay Trading Company Limited for UGX 878,094,203 in Civil Suit No. 0388 of 2022. To execute the judgment, Vegol filed garnishee proceedings against multiple banks including Stanbic Bank. On 15 December 2022, a Garnishee Order Nisi was granted against Stanbic Bank, and on 22 December 2022, a Garnishee Order Absolute was issued after a Stanbic legal officer advised the court that the judgment debtor's account was fully funded. Stanbic failed to pay. Vegol filed contempt proceedings, and Stanbic was found in contempt in Miscellaneous Application No. 0154 of 2023 and ordered to pay the decretal sum plus general damages of UGX 50 million. Stanbic then sought leave to appeal, which was dismissed in November 2023. Stanbic filed the present application in November 2023 seeking to set aside the Garnishee Order Absolute and contempt orders, claiming its legal officer made an honest mistake as the account was not actually funded.
Issues
- Whether the application is proper before this Court?
- Whether there is sufficient ground or basis against which to set aside the Garnishee Order Absolute and orders of contempt of Court?
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (8)
- Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 3024
- Beatrice Odong v Tamp Engineering Consultants Limited & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 129 of 2023)
- Yahaya Kiriisa v Attorney General & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 07 of 1994)
- Marshall v James [1905] 1 Ch 432
- Chen Jianwen & Others v Bang Cheng Investment Company Limited & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 0530 of 2023)
- Conform Uganda Limited v Megha Industries (U) Ltd (HCMA No. 1084 of 2014)
- Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] 2 All ER 579
- Wild life Lodges Ltd v County Council of Narok & Anor [2005] 2 EA 344
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.