Among v Ndagiro (Miscellaneous Application No. 972 of 2013)
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
Held that a dispute as to the amount of money received by the applicant constitutes a triable issue of fact. Where the applicant admits receipt of only UGX 15,000,000 but the respondent claims payment of UGX 120,000,000, the factual dispute requires full trial. Unconditional leave to appear and defend granted where defendant demonstrates a bonafide dispute on facts or law.
Outcome
Applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the summary suit; matter to proceed to full trial
Facts
The respondent filed a summary suit claiming UGX 120,000,000 jointly and severally from the applicant and four others for money paid to secure land at Namanve with a deed print. The applicant denied the debt, stating that the parties agreed on a contract price of UGX 120,000,000 for surveying and acquiring the deed print, the respondent paid only UGX 15,000,000 as a deposit, and defaulted on the balance of UGX 105,000,000. The applicant claimed to have refunded UGX 10,000,000 by cheque. The respondent countered that he paid the full UGX 120,000,000, including UGX 105,000,000 handed personally to the applicant at DFCU Bank. The respondent obtained the money through a bank overdraft and later settled a related suit with the bank. The applicant applied for unconditional leave to appear and defend, arguing triable issues existed and that the claim was not a liquidated demand suitable for summary procedure.
Issues
- Whether the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent without leave of court should be struck out.
- Whether the applicant has raised triable issues of fact or law sufficient to warrant the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend the summary suit.
- Whether the claim is for a liquidated demand suitable for determination by summary procedure under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Orders
- Preliminary objection to the supplementary affidavit overruled.
- Application granted.
- Applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 614 of 2013.
- Applicant to file written statement of defence within ten days from the date of the ruling.
- Costs to be in the cause.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 rule 2(a)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 rule 3
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 rule 4
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 1
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 2
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 3
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Judicature (Amendment) Act 2003 s.4
- Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126
- Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)(e)
Cases cited (7)
- Southern Investments Ltd v Mukabura Investments Ltd (HCMA No. 105 of 2004)
- Broadband Company Ltd v Joram Mugume (HCMA No. 363 of 2013)
- Bibagamba v Mungereza (HCMA No. 103 of 2012)
- Sterling Travel and Tour Services Ltd v Millennium Travel Tours Services Ltd (HCMA No. 116 of 2013)
- [1985] HCB 65
- Rwabuganda Godfrey v Bitamisi Namuddu (CACA No. 23 of 2009)
- [2002] 1 EA 112
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.