Wakilii

Asiimwe Peter v Nuwamanya Humphrey and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1511 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 434 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit arising from alleged breach of debt repayment undertaking
Decision
Applicant 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

Held that the applicant raised triable issues of law and fact regarding entitlement to recover the debt and whether payments already made should be credited. The claim for general damages placed the matter outside the scope of summary procedure under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Unconditional leave to appear and defend was granted.

Outcome

Applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit

Facts

On 12 September 2024, the applicant executed a Memorandum of Understanding acknowledging indebtedness of UGX 100,000,000 to the respondents and undertook to repay the sum in 18 months by 15 April 2026 in instalments of UGX 11,000,000 every two months. The respondents instituted Civil Suit No. 722 of 2025 seeking recovery of the full amount, alleging breach of the undertaking. The applicant contended that the suit was premature as the repayment period had not expired and that he had already paid UGX 50,000,000. Bank receipts showed deposits of UGX 6,000,000 and UGX 5,000,000 on 11 February 2025 and 30 April 2025 respectively. The respondents claimed only UGX 11,000,000 had been paid. The applicant applied for unconditional leave to appear and defend, arguing that triable issues existed regarding the amount owed and whether the suit was premature.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 722 of 2025?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Applicant is hereby granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 722 of 2025.
  • The Applicant shall file and serve his 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 receipt of the Written Statement of Defence.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Leave to Appear and 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 bona fide triable issue of fact or law. A triable issue is one capable of being resolved through a legal trial, being a matter that is subject to or liable to judicial examination in court.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Scope of Order 36 — Claims for General Damages
A claim for general damages is not a liquidated demand and therefore falls outside the scope of Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Where an application for leave to appear and defend comes before a judge and the claim does not fall under Order 36, unconditional leave to appear and defend should be granted to the applicant.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Appropriate Cases for Summary Procedure
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, the matter falls outside the ambit of Order 36.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Determination Before Merits
Where there is a preliminary objection capable of disposing of the matter in issue, it is judicious to determine the objection before embarking on the merits of the case.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (7)

  • Uganda Telecom Limited v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2017)
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Jamil Ssenyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (High Court Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
  • Bhaker Kotecha v Adam Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Solomon Baganja and Another v Henley Property Developers Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 47 of 2012)
  • Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd v Bombay Garage Ltd [1958] EA 741
  • Churanjilal & Co. v A.H Adam (1950) 17 EACA 92

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Asiimwe Peter v Nuwamanya Humphrey and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1511 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 434 (24 November 2025)
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.