Wakilii

Threeways Shipping Services (K) Limited and Another v Transpares (K) Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1500 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 410 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of a ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 837 of 2023 which lifted the corporate veil and ordered non-parties to pay a decretal sum
Decision
Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 court dismissed the application for review, holding that the grounds raised by the applicants were not grounds for review within the meaning of Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules but rather grounds of appeal. The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate errors apparent on the face of the record and instead sought to re-argue the merits of the case. The application was brought over a year after the impugned ruling and was deemed a disguised appeal.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent obtained a default judgment against the 1st applicant (a Kenyan company) in Civil Suit No. 279 of 2019 for USD 126,000. Unable to execute the judgment in Kenya, the respondent filed Miscellaneous Application No. 837 of 2023 seeking to lift the corporate veil of the 1st applicant and make the 2nd, 3rd and 4th applicants (who were not parties to the original suit) jointly and severally liable for the decretal sum. The court granted the application on 17 April 2024. The applicants did not appeal or seek review until over a year later, after the respondent obtained a garnishee order nisi against the 4th applicant's bank accounts in June 2025. The applicants then filed this application for review, claiming their former lawyers failed to act on their instructions and that the ruling contained errors apparent on the face of the record.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants raise sufficient grounds to warrant a review of the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 837 of 2023.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Review — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error apparent on the face of the record must be obvious just by looking at the record without requiring arguments to prove it. An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
Review — Distinction from Appeal — Disguised Appeal
An application for review should not be a disguised appeal. The power of review must be exercised with great circumspection lest court ends up sitting in appeal against itself. A review is limited in scope and purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.
Review — Aggrieved Person — Locus Standi
An aggrieved person within the meaning of Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules is a person who has suffered a legal grievance. Only such persons have locus standi to bring an application for review.
Review — Grounds — Erroneous Findings versus Errors on Record
There is a difference between errors on the face of the record and a trial judge making an erroneous finding. It is not a sufficient ground for review that another judge could have taken a different view of the matter or that the court reached an erroneous conclusion. Mere error or wrong view is no ground for review although it may be for an appeal.
Review — Delay — Indolence
Where an applicant participates fully in proceedings but fails to challenge a ruling by way of appeal or review for over a year until execution proceedings are commenced against them, such delay and indolence militates against the grant of review.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (9)

  • Mohammad Alibhai v W.E. Bukenya Mukasa and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
  • Watwero Enterprises Limited v Board of Governors of Lukome Secondary School and Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2023)
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2001] 2 EA 173
  • Mr. Satis Kumar v Chief Secretary (RA No. 51 of 2013)
  • Fresh Cuts (U) Limited v Padma Nikhil Rohan Africa (PNR) (Miscellaneous Application No. 0545 of 2024)
  • The Omukama of Tooro v Allan Bright Kagoro (Miscellaneous Application No. 0006 of 2017)
  • Entec Electrical Equipment Company Limited v Uganda (High Court Criminal Revision Cause No. 062 of 2022)
  • Desai v Warsama [1967] EA 351
  • Allan Kahumuza (Administrator of the Estate of the late Laban Mukiidi Abooki Nyakaana) & 4 Others vs Anne Mary Nyakato (Adminitrator of the Estate of the late Laban Mukiidi Abooki Nyakaana) & 2 Others

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Threeways Shipping Services (K) Limited and Another v Transpares (K) Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1500 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 410 (10 November 2025)
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.