Wakilii

Bwahika Benon and Another v Oriebo Orone Godfrey (Miscellaneous Application No. 1750 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 378 · 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 for debt recovery
Decision
Applicants 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

The High Court granted the applicants unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit for debt recovery. The court held that where a defendant adduces evidence showing payment of the claimed debt, this raises triable issues of fact and law that require full judicial examination, placing the matter outside the scope of summary procedure under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Applicants granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit

Facts

The respondent sued the applicants in Civil Suit No. 904 of 2025 seeking recovery of UGX 100,000,000 allegedly obtained by the applicants as an overdraft from his account. The respondent claimed that on 22 January 2021, the applicants signed an agreement to repay this sum but failed to do so. The applicants contended that on the same date, 22 January 2021, they remitted UGX 299,000,000 to an account nominated by the respondent (Hands Uganda Ltd), comprising UGX 100,000,000 for the claimed debt and UGX 199,000,000 for other project works. The applicants produced a bank statement showing a cheque of UGX 299,000,000 debited on 22 January 2021 in favour of Hands Uganda Ltd. The respondent did not dispute or explain this bank statement entry in his affidavit in reply.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants have raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 904 of 2025?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Applicants are hereby granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 904 of 2025.
  • The Applicants shall file and serve their 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 receipt of the Written Statement of Defence.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Granting Leave
For leave to appear and defend to be granted under Order 36 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. A triable issue is one capable of being resolved through legal trial, arising when a material proposition of law or fact is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Scope and Application — When Summary Procedure is Inappropriate
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 evidence adduced raises triable issues of law and fact requiring the court's examination, the matter falls outside the ambit of summary procedure.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Evidence of Payment — Effect on Leave Application
Where an applicant seeking leave to defend a summary suit adduces documentary evidence showing payment of the claimed debt, and the respondent fails to dispute or explain that evidence, this raises triable issues as to whether the applicant is indebted and whether the respondent has a cause of action, warranting the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (9)

  • Post Bank (U) Ltd v Abdu Ssozi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2015)
  • Jamil Ssenyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (High Court Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
  • Geoffrey Gatete and Another v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
  • Namusiitwa Hadija v Gasline Petroleum Energy (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 544 of 2024)
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Bhaker Kotecha v Adam Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Imaging Worls Africa [ITWA] Ltd and Another v Juliet Nagawa Luggya (Miscellaneous Application No. 111 of 2023)
  • Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd v Bombay Garage Ltd [1958] EA 741
  • Churanjilal & 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.

Bwahika Benon and Another v Oriebo Orone Godfrey (Miscellaneous Application No. 1750 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 378 (10 October 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.