Supreme Court of Uganda - 2004 December

Sort by:

9 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
December 2004
Pearl Motors Ltd v Bank of Baroda (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2002) [2004] UGSC 61 (21 December 2004) Appellant failed to prove discharge of overdraft; appellate court properly re‑evaluated evidence and appeal is dismissed with costs. Banking law – Overdraft facility – Unapplied interest kept in suspense account after classification as non‑performing asset – Rights to retain securities – Appellate review and re‑evaluation of evidence (Judicature Act s.11; Rule 19).	21 December 2004
Magezi v Sudhir Ruparelia (Civil Application 10 of 2002) [2004] UGSC 48 (20 December 2004) Court granted extension and validated a late-filed appeal due to counsel/registry errors; costs in the cause. Civil procedure – Rule 4 – extension of time to do an act – validation of documents filed out of time; mistake/inadvertence of former counsel and registry errors – not to be visited on litigant; allegations of back-dating/tampering – burden to prove.	20 December 2004
Pearl Motors Ltd v Bank of Baroda (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal 15 of 2002) [2004] UGSC 34 (20 December 2004)	20 December 2004
Magezi and Anor v Rupaleria (Civil Application 10 of 2002) [2004] UGSC 33 (19 December 2004)	19 December 2004
Karia and Another v Attorney General and Others (Civil Appeal 20 of 2002) [2004] UGSC 47 (16 December 2004) A prior appellate judgment determining land status (judgment in rem) binds strangers; appellants without title have no s.15 cause of action. Expropriated Properties Act (s.15) – nature of appeal under the Act – civil suit versus judicial appeal; Jurisdiction – right of further appeal to the Supreme Court from High Court decisions arising under s.15; Res judicata and judgments in rem – effect of prior Court of Appeal determination on land status binding on strangers; Aggrieved person – locus standi under s.15 and effect of statutory nullification and fraud on title; Cancellation and issuance of repossession certificates – ministerial powers and consequences.	16 December 2004
Mansukhlal Ramji Karia and Another v Attorney General and Others (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002) [2004] UGSC 53 (16 December 2004)	16 December 2004
Mansukhlal Ramji Karia and Anor v Attoreny General and Ors (Civil Appeal 20 of 2002) [2004] UGSC 32 (15 December 2004)	15 December 2004
Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Atabya Agencies Ltd [2004] UGSC 37 (13 December 2004) Ex parte interim stays require compelling circumstances; a pending appeal alone does not justify automatic stay of execution. Civil procedure – interim stay of execution – r.1(3) Supreme Court Rules – ex parte relief exceptional and requires compelling circumstances; intention to appeal alone insufficient. Interim relief – urgency and irreparable harm – applicant must show notifying respondent would defeat ends of justice. Execution of guarantee – stale bank draft and threatened enforcement do not automatically justify ex parte stay.	13 December 2004
Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Atabya Agencies Ltd [2004] UGSC 38 (13 December 2004) Notice of appeal or urgency alone does not justify ex parte stay; applicant must show compelling risk of irreparable loss. Civil procedure – Interim relief – Ex parte interim stay of execution – r.1(3) of Supreme Court Rules – granted only to achieve ends of justice or prevent abuse of process. Civil procedure – Effect of Notice of Appeal – filing a Notice of Appeal does not automatically stay execution; applicant must show sufficient cause and risk of irreparable loss. Civil procedure – Urgency and certificates – urgency alone does not justify ex parte relief where opposing party can be heard. Practice – Applicant must ordinarily proceed inter partes unless exceptional circumstances make that impossible or defeat justice.	13 December 2004