Wakilii

Bisaso Bob v Hajji Abdul M. Mubiru and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 80 · 2026 Application Dismissed 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
Application dismissed; judgment entered for respondents for UGX 210,000,000 with interest and costs

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 did not dispute receiving UGX 260,000,000 from the respondents without handing over possession, had partly performed the Memorandum of Understanding, and failed to establish coercion. The court entered judgment for the respondents for UGX 210,000,000 with interest at 24% per annum, reducing the contractual rate of 15% per month as harsh and unconscionable under section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Outcome

Application dismissed; judgment entered for respondents for UGX 210,000,000 with interest and costs

Facts

The respondents and others paid UGX 260,000,000 to the applicant and others for the purchase of 40 acres of land at Kanzila, Luwero District. Despite full payment, the respondents were not given possession. The applicant undertook to personally refund the full purchase price and signed a Memorandum of Understanding on 19 March 2025 agreeing to pay in two installments. The applicant paid UGX 50,000,000 but defaulted on the balance of UGX 210,000,000. The respondents instituted a summary suit for recovery. The applicant applied for leave to appear and defend, claiming he was coerced into signing the agreement, that the interest claimed was not part of the agreement, and that he had made an additional payment of UGX 10,000,000 in August 2025 which was not acknowledged.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 1457 of 2025.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appear and defend dismissed.
  • Judgment entered for the Respondents/Plaintiffs under Order 36 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • The Applicant/Defendant shall pay the Respondents/Plaintiffs UGX 210,000,000 being the outstanding balance.
  • Interest awarded on the sum at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of default until payment in full.
  • Costs of the application and the suit awarded to the Respondents/Plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Granting Leave
For leave to appear and defend under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules to be granted, an applicant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bonafide triable issue of fact or law. A triable issue is one capable of being resolved through a legal trial and arises when a material proposition of law or fact is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. The defence raised must not be a sham or be averred in a manner that appears to be needlessly bald, vague or sketchy.
Contract Law — Duress and Coercion — Burden of Proof
To establish coercion, the party alleging it must establish by evidence the threats which were applied. Material factors include whether the person alleged to have been coerced protested, whether at the time he had an alternative course open to him such as an adequate legal remedy, whether he was independently advised, and whether after entering the contract he took steps to avoid it. Mere assertion of coercion without supporting evidence is insufficient.
Contract Law — Interest — Harsh and Unconscionable Interest Rates
Under section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, where an agreement for the payment of interest is sought to be enforced and the court is of the opinion that the rate agreed to be paid is harsh and unconscionable and ought not to be enforced by legal process, the court may give judgment for the payment of interest at such a rate as the court may consider just. Contractual interest is only enforceable if the court finds it not harsh and unconscionable.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Purpose and Application
Summary procedure 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. It provides a quick way for the plaintiff who demands a liquidated sum to obtain judgment where there is no evident defence.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (14)

  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Jamil Ssenyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (High Court Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
  • Bhaker Kotecha v Adam Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Nakalima v Ann Nandawula Kabali (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 235 of 2013)
  • Pao On v Lau [1979] 3 All ER 78
  • Nabiteko Robinah and Another v Ssenoga Willy and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 674 of 2021)
  • Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd v Bombay Garage Ltd [1958] EA 741
  • Post Bank (U) Limited v Abdu Ssozi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2015)
  • Ndibazza Naima v Acacia Finance Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1144 of 2014)
  • Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation (U) Ltd and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
  • R.L Jain v Loy Komugisha and 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 98 of 2018)
  • Rajnish Jain (Administrator of the Estate of the late R.L Jain) v Lokii Peter Abraham (High Court Civil Suit No. 277 of 2013)
  • Jas Ventures International Limited v Atuhaire Juliet (High Court Civil Suit No. 676 of 2021)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bisaso Bob v Hajji Abdul M. Mubiru and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2026) [2026] UGCommC 80 (27 February 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.