Tumwebaze v Centenary Rural Development Bank [2024] UGHC 1228
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
Where an applicant withdraws a civil application before the respondent files an affidavit in reply, the applicant is not liable for the respondent's costs. Documents uploaded on ECCMIS constitute effective service on all interested parties with the time of activity recorded. The court will not condemn a party to costs for withdrawing before the opposite party has responded.
Outcome
Application withdrawn with no order as to costs
Facts
The applicant sought to stop the sale of mortgaged properties (land in Wakiso and Kiruhura districts) pledged as security for a loan facility of UGX 400,000,000. The respondent bank had recalled the facility prematurely for UGX 309,577,238. The applicant proposed to deposit 50% of the outstanding amount to redeem the properties. On 25 March 2024 at 4:30 pm, the applicant filed a notice of withdrawal on ECCMIS and served it on the respondent on 26 March 2024 at 9:02 am. The respondent filed an affidavit in reply on 26 March 2024 at 9:58 am, after service of the withdrawal notice. The respondent had previously filed a substantive suit against the applicant in the High Court at Mukono (C.S. No. 84/2023) for recovery of the outstanding loan of UGX 394,387,573.
Issues
- Whether Miscellaneous Application No. 100 of 2023 should be withdrawn with costs
Orders
- Application withdrawn with no orders as to costs.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (1)
- Kaswara Hassan Ali v Fort Portal Municipal Council (Miscellaneous Application No. 105 of 2019)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.