Wakilii

Akarukei Development v The Board of Governors Teso Intergrated Secondary School (Civil Suit 14 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 213 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff (Interest Claim Dismissed) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Summary suit for recovery of liquidated sum; judgment in default entered after defendant failed to file defence; formal proof hearing conducted ex parte
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff for UGX 139,000,000; interest claim dismissed

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

In a summary suit for recovery of a liquidated sum, the court held that where a defendant is granted leave to defend but fails to file a defence within the prescribed time, judgment in default may be entered. The plaintiff proved supply of foodstuff to the defendant school through local purchase orders, delivery notes, invoices, and acknowledgment of part payment. The court awarded the principal sum of UGX 139,000,000 but declined to award interest at 20% per annum, holding that under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules, interest can only be awarded where the parties have expressly agreed to it in their contract.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff for UGX 139,000,000; interest claim dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff, a produce and supplies dealer, supplied foodstuff (sacks of posho and beans) to the defendant secondary school on various dates from 2015 onwards pursuant to local purchase orders issued by the defendant. The defendant received the supplies as evidenced by goods delivery notes stamped and acknowledged by the defendant, and made part payments. The accumulated unpaid balance totalled UGX 139,000,000. The defendant acknowledged the debt in a document dated 29 January 2018 and committed to pay by 3 February 2018 but failed to do so. The plaintiff instituted a summary suit. The defendant was granted leave to defend but failed to file a written statement of defence within the prescribed time. Judgment in default was entered on 12 December 2022. The matter proceeded to formal proof, with the plaintiff leading evidence through its director, Okia Nathan Isengende.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff to the tune claimed.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The plaintiff is awarded the amount due of UGX 139,000,000 to be paid by the defendant.
  • Interest prayed for of 20% at a commercial rate from the date of filing the suit till payment in full is NOT awarded as it was not proved.
  • The plaintiff being the successful party herein is awarded costs of this suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Order 36 CPR — Purpose and Scope
Summary procedure under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules exists to prevent unreasonable obstruction of justice by a defendant who has no defence and to assist expeditious disposal of cases involving liquidated sums. It is a fast-track procedure applicable only to limited subject matters where it is clear that the defendant does not have a defence.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Conversion to Ordinary Suit
Where a suit starts as a summary suit and leave to defend is granted, the suit becomes an ordinary one.
Contract Law — Interest on Debt — Summary Suits — Order 36 CPR
Under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules, interest on a liquidated sum can only be awarded where the parties have expressly or impliedly agreed to it in their contract. Where there is no evidence of an agreement as to interest, the court cannot award interest even if the plaintiff claims to have incurred costs in performing the contract.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Proof of Supply and Debt
Where local purchase orders, goods delivery notes stamped and acknowledged by the defendant, invoices, and receipts of part payment are tendered and uncontested, they constitute sufficient proof that the plaintiff supplied goods to the defendant and that the defendant is indebted for the unpaid balance.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (5)

  • Hanani Moezali v Moez Ramani (HCCS No. 416 of 2001)
  • Begumisa George v East African Development Bank (HCMA No. 451 of 2010)
  • Arjabu Kasule v F. T. Kawesa [1957] EA 611
  • E. M. Cornwell & Co. Ltd v Shantaguari Dahyabhai Desai (1941) 6 ULR 103
  • Uganda Transport Co. Ltd v Count De La Pasture [1954] 21 EACA 163

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Akarukei Development v The Board of Governors Teso Intergrated Secondary School (Civil Suit 14 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 213 (7 May 2023)
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.