Wakilii

Twaha Lwakaana v Equity Bank Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 0740 of 2024; Miscellaneous Application 1118 of 2025; Miscellaneous Application No. 1399 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 235 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of court orders granting conditional leave to defend arising from summary suit for debt recovery
Decision
Application for review dismissed; applicant remains subject to the conditional leave orders in M.A. 1399 of 2024

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 review of orders granting conditional leave to defend upon payment of UGX 150,000,000 as security. The Court held that the applicant's ground—that the security amount was excessive—did not fall within the statutory exceptions for review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The ground constituted neither discovery of new evidence, nor an error apparent on the face of the record, nor sufficient cause analogous to those grounds.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; applicant remains subject to the conditional leave orders in M.A. 1399 of 2024

Facts

The respondent bank filed Civil Suit No. 0740 of 2024 seeking recovery of UGX 541,087,433 arising from breach of a loan facility agreement. The applicant filed M.A. 1399 of 2024 seeking unconditional leave to appear and defend. The Court granted conditional leave requiring the applicant to deposit UGX 150,000,000 as security within 30 days. The applicant then filed M.A. 1118 of 2025 seeking review of that order on the ground that the security amount was excessive, harsh, and impossible to pay within the stipulated time, despite the Court having found a triable issue.

Issues

  1. Whether this is a proper case for review of the Court's orders in M.A. 1399 of 2024.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Court Orders — Grounds for Review — Statutory Requirements
An application for review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules may only succeed on the grounds of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after due diligence was not within the applicant's knowledge, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason analogous to those grounds.
Civil Procedure — Review of Court Orders — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition
For a review to succeed on the basis of an error on the face of the record, the error must be so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on the record. A wrong application of the law or failure to apply the appropriate law is not an error on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Review of Court Orders — Sufficient Cause — Meaning and Scope
The expression 'sufficient cause' in Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules should be read as meaning sufficiently of a kind analogous to the discovery of new and important matter of evidence previously overlooked by excusable misfortune and some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Review of Court Orders — Excessive Security — Not a Ground for Review
A contention that an order for payment of security for a claim is excessive, harsh, or impossible to execute does not constitute a ground for review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act or Order 46 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as it does not amount to discovery of new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient cause.
Civil Procedure — Functus Officio — Court's Power After Delivering Ruling
Once a court has made its ruling and passed orders, it becomes functus officio and cannot revisit the said ruling and orders or purport to exercise judicial power over the same matter, save through the statutory review mechanism where proper grounds are established.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (2)

  • F.X. Mubuuke v UEB (HCMA No. 98 of 2005)
  • Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd [1979] HCB 12

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Twaha Lwakaana v Equity Bank Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 0740 of 2024; Miscellaneous Application 1118 of 2025; Miscellaneous Application No. 1399 of 2024) [2026] UGCommC 235 (8 April 2026)
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.