Wakilii

Blessed Riverstones (U) Limited and Jailes Bahati v Dignity Gold LLC (Miscellaneous Application No. 390 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 249 · 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 arising from summary suit proceedings
Decision
Applicants granted leave to defend; 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 High Court Commercial Division granted the applicants unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit. The court held that the applicants demonstrated triable issues of fact and law regarding their role as agents versus sellers in a gold sale transaction, whether they received payment for 120kg of gold, and whether there was breach of the Sale and Purchase Agreement. The court applied the principle that a defendant need not show a good defence on the merits at this stage, but must satisfy the court that there is a bona fide triable issue.

Outcome

Applicants granted leave to defend; matter to proceed to full trial

Facts

The respondent filed a summary suit seeking to recover USD 880,804 from the applicants based on a Settlement Agreement dated 27 September 2023. The respondent claimed this sum was paid under a Sale and Purchase Agreement for 120kg of gold to be delivered to Los Angeles, which the first applicant, through its director the second applicant, failed to supply. The applicants contended they acted solely as agents linking the seller Mema Munguiko Louis with the respondent buyer, and that the seller was responsible for shipping. The applicants claimed the respondent diverted the consignment to Dubai in breach of the agreement, and that they never received payment for 120kg of gold. The respondent alleged the applicants breached the agreement by failing to deliver to Los Angeles and providing a 3kg sample that turned out to be copper. The applicants sought leave to appear and defend, arguing there were triable issues regarding their role as agents, receipt of payment, and breach of contract.

Issues

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

Orders

  • The Applicants are granted unconditional leave to appear and defend in Civil Suit No. 0189 of 2024.
  • The Applicants 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

Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Granting Leave
In an application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the applicant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law and a plausible defence to the suit. The applicant is not bound to 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. The court shall not enter upon the trial of issues disclosed at this stage.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Grounds for Granting Leave to Defend
A defendant is granted leave to appear and defend if he can show that he has a good defence on the merits; or that a difficult point of law is involved; or a dispute as to the facts which ought to be tried; or a real dispute as to the amount claimed which requires taking an account to determine; or any other circumstances showing reasonable grounds of a bona fide defence.
Contract Law — Agency — Disputes as to Principal-Agent Relationship
Where a party contends that they acted solely as an agent and not as a principal seller in a commercial transaction, and disputes arise as to whether they received payment and whether there was breach of the underlying agreement, such contentions raise triable issues of fact and law that merit a full hearing rather than summary determination.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (5)

  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Kotecha v Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Saw V Hakim 5 TLR 72
  • Ray v Barker 4 Ex DI 279
  • Geoffrey Gatete and Another v William Kyobe (2007) HCB 55

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Blessed Riverstones (U) Limited and Jailes Bahati v Dignity Gold LLC (Miscellaneous Application No. 390 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 249 (20 May 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.