Wakilii

Baganja & Anor v Nenley Property Developers Ltd (Civil Suit No. 47 of 2012)

High Court · [2013] UGCOMMC 174 · 2013 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection in a summary suit that had been converted to an ordinary suit after partial judgment and grant of conditional leave to defend
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to trial or mediation as an ordinary suit

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 where leave to defend a summary suit is granted, the suit proceeds as an ordinary suit and the court has no power to strike out claims that do not fall within Order 36. The defendant's preliminary objection that claims for general damages and additional interest could not be tried following a grant of conditional leave to defend was overruled. The proper remedy where a claim does not fall under Order 36 rule 2 is to grant unconditional leave to defend and treat the matter as an ordinary plaint, not to strike out the claim.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to trial or mediation as an ordinary suit

Facts

The plaintiffs filed a summary suit against the defendant for refund of US$26,000, general damages, and interest at 25% per annum. The defendant applied for leave to defend. By consent, the court entered partial judgment for US$26,260 (principal plus 1% penalty) and granted the defendant conditional leave to defend on the aspects of general damages, interest, and costs. The defendant paid the decreed amount and subsequently raised a preliminary objection that claims for general damages and additional interest could not be tried in proceedings originating as a summary suit under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the claim for general damages arising out of a summary suit is properly before court and can be tried by the court
  2. Whether the Plaintiffs have a cause of action against the Defendant for interest
  3. Whether the Defendant can raise points of law not raised in or after the application for leave to defend a summary suit has been disposed of

Orders

  • The Defendant's preliminary objection is overruled with costs.
  • The suit shall proceed for hearing as an ordinary suit.
  • The matter is to be referred for mandatory court annexed mediation if not already attempted.
  • If mediation has been attempted, the matter shall be fixed for scheduling and trial as an ordinary suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Summary Procedure — Scope of Order 36 — Claims for General Damages
General damages cannot be claimed in a summary suit under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules because such damages are unliquidated and cannot be ascertained at the time of filing suit. Order 36 is restricted to liquidated debts or demands in money.
Summary Procedure — Effect of Grant of Leave to Defend — Conversion to Ordinary Suit
Where a defendant is granted leave to defend a summary suit, whether conditional or unconditional, the suit proceeds as an ordinary suit. The court has no power to strike out claims that do not fall within Order 36 rule 2; rather, the proper remedy is to grant unconditional leave to defend and treat the plaint as an ordinary plaint.
Summary Procedure — Irregularly Endorsed Claims — Remedy
Where a plaint is irregularly brought under Order 36 because it contains claims not falling within the scope of that Order, the registrar should refuse to issue a specially endorsed plaint. Once issued and leave to defend is sought, the court should grant leave and the matter proceeds as an ordinary suit. There is no power to strike out the irregular claims.
Summary Procedure — Conditional Leave to Defend — Court's Powers under Order 36 rule 10
Under Order 36 rule 10, where leave to defend is given (whether conditional or unconditional), the court has power to give all directions and make all orders as to pleadings, issues, and any further steps in the suit as may appear reasonable or necessary.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

  • Zola and Another v Ralli Brothers Ltd and Another [1969] EA 691
  • Uganda Transport Company Ltd v Count De la Pasture (1954) EACA 163
  • Caltex Oil (U) Ltd v Kyobe [1988-1990] HCB 141
  • EM Cornwell and Company Limited v Shantaquari Dahyabhai Desai (1941) 6 ULR 103
  • Hanani Moezali v Moez Ramani (High Court Civil Suit No. 416 of 2001)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov (1971) EA 514

Cases citing this judgment (3)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Baganja & Anor v Nenley Property Developers Ltd (Civil Suit No. 47 of 2012) [2013] UGCommC 174 (18 October 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.