Wakilii

Black House Trading Company Limited v Nuwabiine Burhan and Another (Civil Suit No. 204 of 2025; Miscellaneous Application 998 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 318 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit arising from a commercial dispute over coffee supply payment
Decision
Applicant granted unconditional leave to defend the summary suit; matter to proceed to full trial

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 granted the applicant unconditional leave to appear and defend the summary suit. The applicant raised triable issues of fact and law regarding the quantity of coffee delivered, deductions made under UCDA standards, and whether any debt remained outstanding. These disputes placed the matter outside the scope of summary procedure under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules, requiring full trial.

Outcome

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

Facts

On 7 January 2025, the respondents supplied robusta FAQ coffee to the applicant company. The parties disputed the final weight and payment due. The respondents claimed they supplied 18,769 kilograms worth UGX 274,965,850 and received only UGX 191,343,200, leaving a balance of UGX 83,622,650. The applicant contended that after UCDA quality assessment revealing excess moisture content and impurities, the net weight was only 17,620 kilograms worth UGX 255,490,000, which they claimed to have paid in full. The respondents filed a summary suit for the alleged balance. The applicant applied for leave to defend, arguing the claim was disputed and raised triable issues.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend High Court Civil Suit No. 204 of 2025.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Applicant is hereby granted unconditional leave to appear and defend High Court Civil Suit No. 204 of 2025.
  • The Applicant shall file and serve its Written Statement of Defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Grant
For leave to appear and defend a summary suit to be granted under Order 36 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an applicant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law. The applicant need not show a good defence on the merits but must satisfy the court that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Scope of Application — Liquidated Demands
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. Where the amount claimed is disputed and triable issues of fact or law exist, the matter falls outside the ambit of Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit in Rejoinder — Not Required by Law
Order 52 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not envisage the filing of an affidavit in rejoinder to an application. An affidavit in rejoinder or any additional affidavit beyond the affidavit in support is additional evidence that is only filed if deemed necessary. A party's failure to file an affidavit in rejoinder does not disadvantage their application.
Civil Procedure — Non-Compliance with Court Directions — Failure to File Submissions — Substantive Justice
Where a party fails to file written submissions as directed but the evidence is contained in the affidavit on record and no prejudice is shown, the court may invoke Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to administer substantive justice and avoid technicalities rather than dismiss the application on that ground alone.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (14)

  • Amrit Goyal v Harichand Gotyal & 3 Others (CACA No. 109 of 2004)
  • Bia Tosha Distributors Ltd v Kenya Breweries Ltd & Others (Petition No. 15 of 2020)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v ZTE Corporation (SCCA No. 3 of 2017)
  • Water & Environment Media Network (U) Ltd & 2 Others v National Environmental Management Authority & Another (Consolidated Miscellaneous Cause Nos. 239 and 255 of 2020)
  • Andrew Kilama Lajul v Uganda Coffee Development Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 324 of 2020)
  • Imaging The Worls Africa Ltd & Another v Juliet Naggawa Lugya & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 111 of 2023)
  • Bunjo v KCB (Uganda) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 174 of 2014)
  • Magumba Halid v Muduawulira Apophia and Bituli Sam (Miscellaneous Application No. 74 of 2025)
  • Charles Nyanzi v Margaret Nanyonga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2010)
  • Jamil Senyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (High Court Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
  • Bhaker Kotecha v Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Geoffrey Gatete & Another v William Kyobe (SCCA No. 7 of 2005)
  • Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd v Bombay Garage [1958] EA 741
  • Churanjila & Co. v A.H Adam (1) [1950] 17 EACA 92

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Black House Trading Company Limited v Nuwabiine Burhan and Another (Civil Suit No. 204 of 2025; Miscellaneous Application 998 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 318 (8 September 2025)
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.