Wakilii

Burungibwansi Emmanuel v Kamugisha Deus (Miscellaneous Application 1237 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 369 · 2025 Application Dismissed 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 for breach of contract
Decision
Application dismissed; summary judgment entered for respondent for UGX 94,000,000

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 dismissed an application for unconditional leave to defend a summary suit for breach of contract. The applicant failed to establish a bona fide defence, presenting contradictory positions that undermined the credibility of his case. The court held that the applicant's defence was not made in good faith and raised no triable issues. Judgment was entered for the respondent for the liquidated sum of UGX 94,000,000 arising from the applicant's failure to pay the balance under a motor vehicle sale agreement.

Outcome

Application dismissed; summary judgment entered for respondent for UGX 94,000,000

Facts

On 21 December 2023, the applicant and respondent entered into an agreement for the purchase of a motor vehicle (Fuso Fighter 120, Reg. No. UBP 389T) for UGX 135,000,000. The applicant paid UGX 41,000,000 as the first instalment into an account held by Emily Bagire at Centenary Bank, and the vehicle was handed over. The balance of UGX 94,000,000 was to be paid within one month. The applicant failed to pay the balance, leading the respondent to file Civil Suit No. 345 of 2024 by way of summary procedure. The applicant then sought unconditional leave to appear and defend, claiming the agreement was made for loan purposes and that he dealt with Bagire Emily and Mugisha Ronald, not the respondent. The applicant's position was contradictory: he both denied any contractual relationship with the respondent and disputed the amount claimed under the same agreement.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant ought to be granted unconditional leave to defend Civil Suit No. 345 of 2024

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. 1237 of 2024 is dismissed.
  • Judgment is entered for the respondent/plaintiff for the decretal amount of UGX 94,000,000 (Uganda Shillings Ninety Four Million Only) under Civil Suit No. 345 of 2024.
  • The costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Unconditional Leave
Unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit will be granted where the applicant demonstrates that there are bona fide triable issues of fact or law, or shows a state of facts which leads to the inference that at trial he may be able to establish a defence to the plaintiff's claim.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Defence Must Be Made in Good Faith
Where the court is in doubt whether the proposed defence is being made in good faith, the court cannot grant unconditional leave to appear and defend the suit. A defence that is contradictory and undermines the clarity and credibility of the applicant's case will not be considered bona fide.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Binding Nature of Contracts
Parties are bound by the terms of contracts they execute freely and voluntarily. A breach of contract occurs when a party fails to discharge a duty owed pursuant to contractual obligations, and such obligations cannot be avoided unless the contract is void or against public policy.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Scope of Summary Judgment
Only claims involving liquidated demands based on a written contract or acknowledgment by the defendant or jointly by the parties may be brought by summary procedure under Order 36 rule 2(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (10)

  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd [1994] EA 141
  • Uganda Development Bank v Kasese Cattle Ranch Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 237 of 2008)
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Abubakar Kato Kasule v Tomsom Muhwezi [1992-1993] HCB 212
  • Board of Governors Nebbi Town S.S.S v Jaker Food Stores Limited (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 62 of 2016)
  • Visare Uganda Limited v Muwema and Co. Advocates and Solicitors (Miscellaneous Application Nos. 826 and 827 of 2023)
  • Children of Africa v Sarick Construction Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 134 of 2016)
  • Printing and Numerical Registering Co v Simpson (1875) LR 19 Eq 462
  • Behange v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (2000) 1 EA 10
  • Sterling Travel and Tour Services Ltd v Millennium Travel Tours Services Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 116 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Burungibwansi Emmanuel v Kamugisha Deus (Miscellaneous Application 1237 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 369 (27 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.