Wakilii

Barclays Bank of Uganda Limited v Ssendagala & Another (Civil Suit 281 of 1992)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 54 · 1992 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appear and defend under Order 33 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Decision
Leave to appear and defend granted; matter to proceed to full hearing

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 held that the defendant raised triable issues including allegations of fraudulent or negligent auction of the principal debtor's assets and inflation of the sum claimed, which cannot be resolved summarily. Leave to appear and defend was granted under Order 33 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Leave to appear and defend granted; matter to proceed to full hearing

Facts

Barclays Bank of Uganda Limited claimed Shs. 17,129,393 with interest from defendants as guarantors of loans advanced to M/S Sezibwa Estates Ltd. The bank alleged that defendants refused or neglected to pay after demand. The 1st defendant applied for leave to appear and defend, alleging that the principal debtor's major assets (a coffee factory on seven acres and a Tata lorry) were fraudulently or negligently auctioned by auctioneers instructed by the plaintiff without notice to the guarantors, and that the sum claimed was inflated. The plaintiff had previously instituted Civil Suit No. 365/90 against the principal and sold the principal's assets before the principal's application for leave to defend could be heard.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant/applicant has a good defence and ought to be permitted to appear and defend the suit.
  2. Whether allegations of fraud and inflation of the claimed sum raise triable issues.

Orders

  • The defendant/applicant is given leave to appear and defend the suit.
  • The defendant must file his defence within 14 days from the date of the ruling.
  • The case be set down for hearing on merit.
  • Costs of this application to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Summary Judgment — Leave to Appear and Defend — Order 33 rule 4 — Test for Granting Leave
On an application for leave to appear and defend under Order 33 rule 4, the defendant is not required to show a good defence on merits but must satisfy the court that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried. The court is not required at this stage to enter upon the trial of the issue disclosed. The applicant must satisfy the court that he has a real defence to the suit, not that he has a complete answer to the plaintiff's case.
Summary Judgment — Fraud Allegations — Effect on Leave to Defend
Where a party alleges fraud in an affidavit in opposition to summary judgment, it raises a triable issue entitling the defendant to leave to defend the suit, as fraud must be given an opportunity to be proved.
Guarantees — Creditor's Rights — Recovery Against Guarantor or Principal Debtor
A creditor who has advanced money to a principal debtor which is guaranteed has the right to proceed either against the principal or the guarantor to recover the money advanced.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (2)

  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Mukombe Agencies ([1982] 1 CB 22)
  • Muluku International Trade Agency Vs. Bank of Uganda

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Barclays Bank of Uganda Limited v Ssendagala & Another (Civil Suit 281 of 1992) [1992] UGHC 54 (25 September 1992)
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.