Wakilii

Ankwatsa v Musana (HCT-00-CC-MA-0172-2013)

High Court · [2013] UGCOMMC 220 · 2013 Application Partly Allowed 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 debt recovery
Decision
Judgment entered for Shs 91,000,000/=; applicant granted leave to defend the residue claim of Shs 21,240,000/=

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

Court held that where a defendant admits liability for part of the claim in writing and provides no credible defence, the court will enter immediate judgment for that admitted portion under Order 36 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The defendant may be allowed to file a defence only as to the residue of the claim where the evidence is unclear or disputed.

Outcome

Judgment entered for Shs 91,000,000/=; applicant granted leave to defend the residue claim of Shs 21,240,000/=

Facts

The respondent sued the applicant for Shs 112,240,000/=, comprising two sums: Shs 91,000,000/= paid in May 2012 towards the applicant's business, which the parties later agreed should be refunded after the applicant became dishonest; and Shs 21,240,000/= paid on 29 June 2012 and injected into the applicant's printing business. The applicant applied for unconditional leave to appear and defend. A written agreement (Annexture A) evidenced the applicant's undertaking to refund the Shs 91,000,000/= in two instalments. The applicant did not deny receiving this amount or signing the agreement, though her counsel claimed the respondent had received a substantial refund without providing evidence. Regarding the second sum of Shs 21,240,000/=, the supporting document (Annexture B) contained multiple different amounts, making it unclear which sum was actually owed.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has demonstrated a bona fide triable issue of fact or law sufficient to warrant unconditional leave to appear and defend.
  2. Whether the court should enter partial judgment under Order 36 rule 6 for the admitted portion of the claim.

Orders

  • Judgment and decree entered in favour of the plaintiff/respondent Musana Ade for the sum of Shs 91,000,000/= to be paid by the applicant/defendant Ankwatsa Mary under Order 36 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Applicant allowed to file a defence in respect of the claim of Shs 21,240,000/= within 14 days.
  • Half of the taxed costs awarded to the respondent to be paid by the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Summary Suit — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Granting Leave
Before leave to appear and defend is granted, the defendant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law, and the defence must be stated with sufficient particularity to appear genuine; general or vague statements denying liability will not suffice.
Summary Suit — Partial Judgment under Order 36 Rule 6
Where a defendant's defence applies only to part of the plaintiff's claim or any part of the claim is admitted, the plaintiff is entitled to immediate judgment for the portion to which no defence applies or which is admitted, while the defendant may be allowed to defend as to the residue of the claim.
Written Agreement — Effect of Uncontroverted Acknowledgment of Debt
Where a defendant signs a written agreement acknowledging receipt of money and undertaking to refund it, and does not deny having signed the agreement or receiving the money, and provides no evidence of repayment, the court will give effect to the uncontroverted written agreement and enter judgment accordingly.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Muluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda (1965) HCB 65
  • Abubaker Kato Kasule v Tomson Muhwezi (1992-93) HCB 212
  • Zorat & Another v Ralli Brothers & Another (1969) EA 690

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ankwatsa v Musana (HCT-00-CC-MA-0172-2013) [2013] UGCommC 220 (23 May 2013)
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.