Asuman Wandera v Dennis Adim Enap (Miscellaneous Application 2843 of 2023)
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, finding that the applicant failed to raise any triable issue of fact or law. The applicant's affidavit contained only general denials of indebtedness, but his signature on the agreement to refund UGX 60 million matched his signature on the application. The court entered summary judgment for the respondent for UGX 60,000,000 with costs under Order 36 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Outcome
Application dismissed; summary judgment entered for the Respondent/Plaintiff for UGX 60,000,000 with costs
Facts
The Respondent claimed UGX 60 million from the Applicant under an agreement for the refund of money paid as purchase price for land. The Respondent filed a summary suit (Civil Suit No. 1440 of 2023). The Applicant applied for leave to appear and defend, denying in his affidavit that he had written the agreement or agreed to refund any money. The Respondent filed an affidavit in reply attaching the agreement bearing the Applicant's signature. On the hearing date, the Applicant and his counsel failed to appear without explanation. The Respondent's counsel submitted that the signature on the agreement matched the signature on the Applicant's affidavit in support, and that the defence consisted only of bare denials.
Issues
- Whether the Applicant has raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 1440 of 2023.
- What remedies are available to the parties.
Orders
- Application for leave to appear and defend dismissed.
- Judgment entered for the Respondent/Plaintiff against the Applicant/Defendant.
- The Respondent/Plaintiff is entitled to a sum of UGX 60,000,000 (Uganda Shillings Sixty Million Only) in Civil Suit No. 1440 of 2023.
- The Respondent/Plaintiff is awarded costs of the application and the suit.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (4)
- Kabagenyi Teddy Onyango v Fina Bank Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 710 of 2012)
- Tomusange and Another v Exim Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1213 of 2016)
- Jamil Senyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (High Court Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
- Geoffrey Gatete and Another v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.