Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Vegol Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 589 of 2025)
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 the applicant bank's application for leave to appeal, holding that the applicant lacked locus standi as a contemnor who had not purged itself of contempt, and that the application was barred by res judicata as the same issues had been conclusively determined in prior proceedings. The court further held that the applicant failed to establish arguable grounds of appeal meriting consideration by the Court of Appeal.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; applicant remains in contempt of court
Facts
Vegol Limited obtained summary judgment and a decree against Sanjay Trading Co. Ltd for UGX 878,094,203.23 plus interest and costs. In execution, Vegol obtained a garnishee order absolute against Stanbic Bank on 22 December 2022, directing the bank to pay the decretal amount from the judgment debtor's account. Stanbic Bank failed to comply with the garnishee order. Vegol then obtained a contempt order against Stanbic Bank on 26 September 2023, along with damages of UGX 150,000,000. Stanbic Bank filed Miscellaneous Application No. 2864 of 2023 seeking to set aside both the garnishee order and the contempt order on grounds of genuine mistake about the existence of funds. That application was dismissed on 12 March 2025. Stanbic Bank then filed the present application on 19 March 2025 seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Issues
- Whether there is a basis against which to grant leave to appeal the Court's ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 2864 of 2023?
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (18)
- Sango Bay Estates Ltd v Dresdner Bank [1971] 1 EA 17
- Okumu v Uganda Electricity Transmission Co Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2010)
- Boutique Shazzim Ltd v Bhatia (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2007)
- Maniraguha Gashumba v Sam Nkundiye (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2005)
- Ponsiano Semakula v Susane Magala [1993] KALR 213
- Leads Insurance Limited v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 05 of 2017)
- Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] 2 All ER 579
- Conform Uganda Limited v Megha Industries (U) Ltd (HCMA No. 1084 of 2014)
- Boutique Shazim Ltd v Bhatia [2009] UGCA 45
- Kamunye v Pioneer General Assurance Society Ltd [1971] EA 263
- Lotta v Tanaki (2003) 2 EA 556
- Namadowa v Kawaidhanako [2018] UGHCCD 109
- Okumu v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited [2023] UGSC 32
- Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority [1996] UGCA 7
- Wild Life Lodges Ltd v County Council of Narok [2005] 2 EA 344
- Johnson Mugisha v Kampala Capital City Authority [2016] UGHCCD 38
- Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 3024
- Yahaya Kiriisa v Attorney General [1994] UGSC 50
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.