Wakilii

Andrew Ssetimba and Another v Tahira Kassam Moyez and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 2417 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 158 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend arising from summary suit for recovery of debt on dishonoured cheque
Decision
Applicants granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit

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 court granted the applicants unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit for recovery of debt on a dishonoured cheque. The court found that triable issues of law and fact existed, including whether the respondents' suit was barred by law for failure to serve notice of dishonour prior to instituting the suit, whether a contractual arrangement existed between the parties, and whether the applicants issued the cheque in question. The notice of dishonour was served six days after the suit was filed, discharging the drawer under the Bills of Exchange Act.

Outcome

Applicants granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit

Facts

The respondents instituted a summary suit against the applicants seeking recovery of USD 100,000 allegedly arising from a contractual arrangement for goods sold and delivered. The respondents claimed the first applicant issued a cheque for USD 100,000 on behalf of the second applicant (a company), which was dishonoured with remarks "account closed" when presented on 17 July 2025. The applicants denied any contractual relationship with the respondents, denied issuing or signing the cheque, and contended they were never served with a notice of dishonour. The respondents claimed they served notice via WhatsApp on 23 September 2025. The main suit was filed on 17 September 2025. The applicants applied for unconditional leave to appear and defend, arguing the suit was barred by law and raised no cause of action.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants have raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 1112 of 2025?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Applicants are hereby granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 1112 of 2025.
  • The Applicants shall file and serve their Written Statement of Defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • The Respondents shall file and serve their reply to the Written Statement of Defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the Written Statement of Defence.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Summary Procedure — Leave to Defend — Test for Granting Leave
For leave to appear and defend to be granted under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an applicant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bonafide triable issue of fact or law. A triable issue is one capable of being resolved through a legal trial, arising when a material proposition of law or fact is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. The defendant is not bound to show a good defence on the merits but should satisfy the court that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried.
Bills of Exchange — Notice of Dishonour — Requirement and Effect of Non-Service
When a cheque has been dishonoured by non-payment, a notice of dishonour must be given to the drawer under Section 47 of the Bills of Exchange Act. Any drawer to whom notice is not given is discharged. Where a notice of dishonour is served after the institution of the suit claiming on the dishonoured cheque, this raises a triable issue as to whether the suit is barred by law.
Summary Procedure — Scope and Applicability — When Summary Procedure is Inappropriate
Summary procedure is resorted to in clear and straightforward cases where the demand is liquidated and there are no issues for determination by the court except for the grant of the claim. Where triable issues of law and fact exist, including whether the suit is barred by law, whether a cause of action exists, whether a contractual arrangement existed between the parties, and whether goods were delivered, the plaint falls outside the ambit of Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules and unconditional leave to defend must be granted.
Affidavits — Argumentative Affidavits — Test for Striking Out
The length of an affidavit is not by itself sufficient to make an affidavit prolix or argumentative. Paragraphs containing details of service, explanations regarding disputed facts, and averments that a party has no viable defence are not necessarily argumentative merely because they are lengthy.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (11)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Uganda Telecom Limited v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2017)
  • Male H. Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Attorney General (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2018)
  • Grow More Seeds Limited v Seret Grains Uganda Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 844 of 2024)
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd Vs Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Jamil Ssenyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (High Court Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
  • Uganda Baati Limited v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 174 of 2020)
  • Simba Motors Limited v John Sentongo & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 733 of 2000)
  • Nanji Khodabhai Vs Sohan Singh & Another [1957] E.A 291
  • Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd Vs Bombay Garage Ltd [1958] EA 741
  • Churanjilal & Co. Vs A.H Adam (1) (1950) 17 EACA 92

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Andrew Ssetimba and Another v Tahira Kassam Moyez and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 2417 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 158 (16 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.