Wakilii

Billy Birungi v Tom Timothy Bakainaga (Civil Suit No. 1387 of 2025; Miscellaneous Application No. 3023 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 92 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend arising from summary suit for debt recovery
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 was entitled to unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit. Although the applicant's argument that the suit was premature lacked merit, the respondent's claim included general damages, which is not a liquidated demand and therefore falls outside the scope of Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules governing summary procedure. Where a claim does not fall under Order 36, unconditional leave to appear and defend should be granted and the plaint treated as an ordinary plaint.

Outcome

Applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit

Facts

The applicant borrowed UGX 1,600,000,000 from Nsambya Biika Oryeho Obeho Group (NBOOG) on 14 December 2024, with the loan guaranteed by his savings and partly by the respondent to the extent of UGX 400,000,000. The applicant defaulted on repayment and the loan was recovered from both parties' savings. On 15 July 2025, the parties executed a Reimbursement Agreement whereby the applicant undertook to reimburse the respondent's UGX 400,000,000 by 31 July 2025 with 2% interest, and in case of default, 2% interest per month on the outstanding amount. The applicant paid only interest totalling UGX 40,000,000 by 14 December 2025. The respondent instituted Civil Suit No. 1387 of 2025 seeking recovery of the principal sum, interest, general damages and costs. The applicant applied for leave to appear and defend, arguing the suit was premature. The respondent did not file a reply despite being served.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 1387 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. 1387 of 2025.
  • The Applicant shall file and serve his Written Statement of Defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • The Respondent shall file and serve his reply to the Written Statement of Defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the Written Statement of Defence.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Scope of Order 36 — Liquidated Demands
Summary procedure under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules 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 a claim includes general damages, which is not a liquidated demand, it falls outside the scope of Order 36.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Specially Endorsed Writ — Effect of Adding Unliquidated Claims
If anything else is added to a liquidated demand, the writ does not come within the definition of a specially endorsed writ under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appear and Defend — Remedy Where Claim Falls Outside Order 36
Where an application for leave to appear and defend comes before a Judge and the claim does not fall under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules, unconditional leave to appear and defend should be granted to the applicant. The remedy is not to strike out the claim but to treat the plaint as an ordinary plaint since the considerations of Order 36 would not apply to it.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Granting Leave
For leave to appear and defend to be granted, an applicant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law. The defence raised should not be a sham or be averred in a manner that appears to be needlessly bald, vague or sketchy. The defendant is not bound to show a good defence on the merits but should satisfy the Court that there was an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Unchallenged Facts
If the applicant supports his application by affidavit or other evidence and the respondent does not reply by affidavit or otherwise and the supporting evidence is credible in itself, the facts stand as unchallenged. Facts as adduced in the affidavit evidence of the applicant that are neither denied nor rebutted are presumed to be admitted.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (8)

  • Serefaco Consultants Ltd v Euro Consult BV and Another (Civil Application No. 16 of 2007)
  • William Akankwasa v Registrar of Titles (HCMA No. 33 of 2008)
  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (SCCA No. 55 of 1995)
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Uganda Transport Co. Ltd v Count De La Pasture (1924) 24 EACA 163
  • Solomon Baganja and Another v Henley Property Developers Limited (HCCS 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.

Billy Birungi v Tom Timothy Bakainaga (Civil Suit No. 1387 of 2025; Miscellaneous Application No. 3023 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 92 (20 March 2026)
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.