Wakilii

Andwyc Constructors And Suppliers and Another v Equity Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 035 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 798 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal against orders dismissing a prior application to reinstate a dismissed application for leave to defend a summary suit
Decision
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against orders dismissing a prior application to reinstate a dismissed application for leave to defend a summary suit. The court found that the applicants demonstrated deliberate unwillingness to challenge their indebtedness despite being given sufficient opportunity, failed to extract court orders to properly frame grounds of appeal, and that no grounds meriting serious judicial consideration by the Court of Appeal were disclosed.

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

Equity Bank filed a summary suit against Andwyc Constructors and Suppliers and Turinomuhangi Andrew Kapere for repayment of UGX 80,000,000 arising from loan default. The loan financed contracts with Rubanda District Local Government. On 12 June 2025, the applicants' application for leave to defend was dismissed in their absence and default judgment was entered. On 13 October 2025, the court allowed an application to set aside the dismissal order with costs. On 17 October 2025, when the matter came up, the second applicant indicated intention to settle but could not identify loan deductions on his account statement. The court denied the application on the basis that the applicant failed to prosecute, noting the default judgment remained valid pending extraction of a decree. The applicants then sought leave to appeal the 17 October 2025 orders.

Issues

  1. Whether this application is meritorious of a grant of leave to appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Grounds for Grant — Standard of Review
Leave to appeal from an order in civil proceedings will normally be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration. The threshold of intervention is whether there are issues of law and fact that require serious consideration by the Court of Appeal.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Requirement to Extract Orders — Appeal from Decree and Orders
An appeal lies from a decree and orders, not from a judgment. An applicant seeking leave to appeal must extract the orders of court in order to properly frame grounds of appeal. Failure to do so may be fatal to the application for leave.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Andwyc Constructors And Suppliers and Another v Equity Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 035 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 798 (15 July 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.