Ankunda Sharon and Nuwe Winnie v Akabazarwe Diana and Mutebi Sharfic (Miscellaneous Application 2328 of 2025)
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 granted the applicants unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit for recovery of USD 50,000. The court held that the applicants raised bona fide triable issues of fact, specifically regarding the actual amount deposited (USD 40,000 versus the claimed USD 50,000) and alleged illegal entry causing USD 15,000 in damages. Under Order 36 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a defendant must show by affidavit that there is a bona fide triable issue to obtain leave to defend.
Outcome
Applicants granted leave to appear and defend the summary suit; matter to proceed to full hearing
Facts
The respondents filed a summary suit (Civil Suit No. 1070 of 2025) against the applicants seeking recovery of USD 50,000 alleged to be a partial payment of the full purchase price under an agreement between the parties. The applicants filed this application seeking unconditional leave to appear and defend the suit. The applicants contended that only USD 40,000 was deposited, not USD 50,000 as claimed by the respondents. The applicants further alleged that the respondents illegally entered the condominium unit and caused damage amounting to USD 15,000. The respondents were suing through their lawful attorney, Bazanye Isah Madibo.
Issues
- Whether the application raised triable issues?
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- Application allowed.
- The Applicants shall file their defence within 15 days of this order.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 36 Rule 3
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 36 Rule 4
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rule 1
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rule 2
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rule 3
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 15 Rule 3
- Evidence Act Cap 8 s.101
- Evidence Act Cap 8 s.103
Cases cited (4)
- Souza Figuerido & Co Ltd v Moorings Hotel Co. Ltd (1959) EA 425
- Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
- Senkungu & 4 Ors v Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2014)
- Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (SCCA No. 28 of 1993)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.