Wakilii

Cwezi Properties Limited v Tulip Consultancy Limited (Civil Appeal No. 124 of 2015)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 316 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal from the High Court (Commercial Division) dismissal of an application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; the trial court's refusal of leave to appear and defend upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is 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

On a first appeal from the dismissal of an application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit, the Court held that none of the appellant's alleged defences raised a bona fide triable issue. The respondent's forbearance in extending time was good consideration for the additional interest and penalties; the freely-agreed interest (16% per annum) and penalties were not harsh or unconscionable under section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act; specific performance remained available because the appellant's contractual right to terminate had expired before suit; and only an extension of time, not the payment obligation, was contingent on bank financing. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Facts

In November 2011 the appellant agreed to buy land and developments at Plot 3 Gasper Oda Street, Ntinda, from the respondent for USD 760,000, payable in two instalments. The appellant paid USD 150,000 on execution but failed to pay the USD 610,000 balance by 15 March 2012. The parties signed addendum no.1 extending payment to 30 June 2012 and introducing penalty interest of 3% per month, and later addendum no.2 granting a further six-month extension with an inconvenience fee of USD 84,186 and 16% penal interest. The appellant made further payments but never cleared the balance. The respondent filed a summary suit (HCCS No. 505 of 2013) to recover the outstanding sum, interest and penalties. The appellant's application for leave to appear and defend was dismissed and judgment was entered for the respondent, including an order for specific performance and interest at 16% per annum. The appellant appealed against the refusal of leave.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the application for leave to appear and defend the summary suit raised no triable issue warranting the grant of leave.
  2. Whether the interest, inconvenience fees and penalties imposed by the two addenda were supported by consideration.
  3. Whether the contractual penalties and the agreed interest rates were harsh, unconscionable or unenforceable so as to engage section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
  4. Whether the remedy of specific performance was unavailable to the respondent under section 63(2)(e) of the Contracts Act because the appellant was entitled to terminate the contract.
  5. Whether the contract was contingent on the appellant obtaining bank financing and therefore unenforceable under section 27 of the Contracts Act.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure (Order XXXVI) — Leave to Appear and Defend — Triable Issue
An applicant for leave to appear and defend a summary suit must set out with clarity and particularity the material facts disclosing a genuine triable issue; a vague, general, illusory or sham defence does not entitle the applicant to leave, and at that stage the court determines only whether a triable issue exists, not the merits of the defence.
Contract Law — Consideration — Forbearance as Consideration
Forbearance by a creditor in extending time for payment and refraining from enforcing its existing legal rights constitutes good consideration for a debtor's subsequent agreement to pay additional interest and penalties.
Contract Law — Penalty Clauses — Enforceability under Section 61(1) of the Contracts Act
Section 61(1) of the Contracts Act displaces the common law doctrine of penalties; contractual penalties are enforceable, and what is prohibited is only the innocent party recovering compensation exceeding the amount named in the agreed penalty stipulation.
Contract Law — Interest — Harsh and Unconscionable Rates — Section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
A court will interfere with a freely agreed contractual rate of interest as harsh and unconscionable under section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act only where the interest was imposed unfairly to maliciously disadvantage a party; rates freely agreed between private parties are not unconscionable merely because they exceed average commercial bank rates.
Contract Law — Specific Performance — Right to Terminate — Section 63(2)(e) of the Contracts Act
Under section 63(2)(e) of the Contracts Act, specific performance is unavailable only where the party against whom the claim is made is, at the time the claim is brought, entitled to terminate the contract; a contractual right to terminate that has lapsed before institution of the suit does not bar specific performance.
Contract Law — Contingent Contracts — Section 27 of the Contracts Act
Where only an extension of the time for performance, and not the principal payment obligation itself, is made contingent on an uncertain future event, the contract is not rendered unenforceable under section 27 of the Contracts Act by the non-occurrence of that event.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.26(1)
  • Contracts Act s.9(1)
  • Contracts Act s.12
  • Contracts Act s.27
  • Contracts Act s.28
  • Contracts Act s.61(1)
  • Contracts Act s.63(2)(e)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order XXXVI rule 3
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order XXXVI rule 4
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 30(1)

Cases cited (13)

  • Attorney General v Dr. Maj. (Rtd) Anthony Jallon Okullo [2019] UGCA 164
  • Cairo International Bank v Sadique M. Janjua [2011] UGSC 30
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] UGSC 1
  • Peters v Sunday Post [1958] EA 424
  • Fr. Narcensio Besumisa & others v Eric Tibebaasa [2004] UGSC 18
  • Post Bank Uganda Ltd v Abdu Sozi [2017] UGSC
  • Bhaker Kotecha v Adam Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Children of Africa v Sarick Construction Limited [2019] UGHCCD 154
  • Lesione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406
  • Deluxe Enterprises Limited v Uganda Leasing Co. Limited [2018] UGCA 71
  • Tamplin Steamship Co. Ltd v Anglo-Mexican Petroleum Products Co. Ltd [1916] 2 AC 197
  • Behanse Jennifer v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (2000) 1 EA 20
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Limited v East African Development Bank [1993] UGSC 16
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.