Annet Nabuufu v NCBA Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1780 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 court dismissed the application for leave to appear and defend on the ground that it was filed out of time. The applicant filed only an affidavit in support on 8 August 2025, within the ten-day limit, but the actual notice of motion was not filed until 26 September 2025, over a month after the deadline of 11 August 2025. No application for extension of time was made. The respondent was entitled to judgment in default.
Outcome
Application dismissed; respondent entitled to enter default judgment in the underlying summary suit
Facts
NCBA Bank Uganda Limited filed Civil Suit No. 794/2025 by way of summary plaint against Annet Nabuufu and served summons on 31 July 2025. Under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the defendant was required to file an application for leave to appear and defend within ten days, meaning by 11 August 2025. On 8 August 2025, the applicant filed an affidavit in support via ECCMIS through Leadman Advocates. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that no competent application had been filed within time. The court examined the ECCMIS digital footprint and found that only an affidavit was filed on 8 August 2025; the actual notice of motion was filed on 26 September 2025 by Tonny Olowo, well outside the ten-day limit. No application for extension of time was made.
Issues
- Whether the applicant's application for leave to appear and defend was filed within the mandatory ten-day period prescribed under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Whether the application was competent and entitled to be entertained by the court.
Orders
- Application for leave to appear and defend dismissed as incompetent.
- Respondent entitled to judgment in default of an application for leave to defend.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
Cases cited (2)
- M.M.K Engineering v Mantrust Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 128 of 2012)
- Makula Inter global Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.