Bamwine Quillino v Trident Impex Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 0199 of 2023)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Held that where an applicant seeking leave to defend a summary suit shows that there are bonafide triable issues of fact or law and a plausible defence, unconditional leave must be granted. The court found that contested documentary evidence and a defence of contractual frustration due to government policy changes raised triable issues requiring full investigation at trial. The applicant need not establish a good defence on the merits at this interlocutory stage.

Outcome

Applicant granted unconditional leave to defend the underlying summary suit; matter to proceed to full trial

Facts

The respondent plaintiff filed a summary suit for breach of contract arising from an agreement dated 3 December 2019 whereby the applicant defendant undertook to facilitate acquisition of 20 acres of land in the Naguru/Nakawa estate by 31 March 2020. The applicant sought leave to defend, contending that he secured ministerial allocations of land totalling 23.5 acres but that the process was frustrated by a government policy change halting titles and allocations in the area, with presidential, parliamentary and judicial intervention. The respondent opposed, asserting that no land was ever actually allocated or delivered and that the ministerial letters were false documents. The applicant relied on letters from the Minister of State for Urban Development and the Minister of Lands as evidence of performance and frustration.

Issues

1. Whether the Applicant disclosed sufficient grounds to merit the grant of leave to appear and defend the suit?
2. What remedies are available?

Orders

• Application allowed.
• The Applicant is granted unconditional leave to appear and defend in Civil Suit No. 1118 of 2022.
• The Applicant shall file a written statement of defence within 10 days from the date of this order.
• The costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 Rule 3(1)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 Rule 3

Cases cited (9)

• Isse Shekhnor Roble & Anor v M.M.M. Agro Dealers Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 514 of 2014)
• Oburu Benard & 3 Others v Miyabele Atanani Fidel & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 1038 of 2016)
• Souza Figuerido & Co Ltd v Moorings Hotel Co Ltd (1959) EA 426
• Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
• Geoffrey Gatete & Anor v William Kyobe (2007) HCB 55
• Kotecha v Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
• Saw V Hakim 5 TLR 72
• Ray v Barker 4 Ex DI 279
• Post Bank (U) Ltd v Abdu Ssozi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2015)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Bamwine v Trident Impex Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 199 of 2023)

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