Wakilii

Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited v Erosia Concepts Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1632 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 391 · 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 on bid security guarantee
Decision
Applicant 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 unconditional leave to appear and defend where the applicant bank raised triable issues of law and fact regarding a bid security guarantee claim. The court held that allegations of fraud in underlying Powers of Attorney, questions about the validity of the conditional award, and a claim for general damages placed the matter outside the scope of summary procedure under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit

Facts

The Respondent issued a procurement notice for farmland and required bidders to provide a bid security of USD 150,000. Eastern Pride General Enterprises Limited obtained such security from the Applicant bank and submitted a bid. The Respondent awarded the contract to Eastern Pride conditionally, requiring a performance bond of USD 1,297,500 within 20 calendar days. Eastern Pride failed to provide the performance bond. The Respondent then demanded payment under the bid security from the Applicant bank. The Applicant refused payment, alleging that the underlying contract was invalid because the condition precedent was not fulfilled, and that Powers of Attorney presented by Eastern Pride were fraudulent. The Applicant claimed that the registered proprietors of the land had only issued a limited 30-day mandate which expired on 30 December 2024. The Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 405 of 2025 under summary procedure seeking USD 150,000, general damages and costs. The Applicant then applied for leave to appear and defend.

Issues

  1. Whether the supplementary affidavit in support is fatally defective?
  2. Whether the Applicant has raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 405 of 2025?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Applicant is hereby granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 405 of 2025.
  • The Applicant shall file and serve its Written Statement of Defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • The Respondent shall file and serve its 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
Under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a defendant served with summons under summary procedure must obtain leave from court to appear and defend. Leave should be granted where the applicant shows 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 of Order 36 — Claims for General Damages
A claim for general damages is not a liquidated demand and therefore falls outside the scope of Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Where an application for leave to appear and defend comes before a judge and the claim does not fall under Order 36, unconditional leave to appear and defend should be granted to the applicant.
Banking & Finance — Guarantees — Bid Security — Fraud Exception
A guarantor is not bound to honour a demand that it knows is tainted by fraud, despite the documents appearing to be regular on their face. Allegations of fraud in the underlying transaction raise triable issues of law and fact that warrant granting leave to appear and defend in summary proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Hearsay — Interlocutory Applications
Under Order 19 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his or her own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory applications where statements of belief may be admitted provided the grounds thereof are stated. A legal representative who deposes to matters within his professional knowledge and conduct is competent to swear an affidavit on those matters.
Contract Law — Formation — Conditional Awards — Condition Precedent
Where a contract award is expressly conditional upon the successful bidder providing a performance bond within a specified time, the failure to fulfil that condition precedent raises a triable issue as to whether a valid and enforceable contract came into existence.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (11)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
  • Namutebi Matilda v Ssemanda Simon and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 430 of 2021)
  • Bankone Limited v Simbamanyo Estates Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 645 of 2020)
  • The Co-operative Bank Limited Vs Kasiko John [1983] HCB 72
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd Vs Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Jamil Ssenyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (High Court Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
  • Bhaker Kotecha Vs Adam Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Solomon Baganja & Another v Henley Property Developers Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 47 of 2012)
  • Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd Vs Bombay Garage Ltd [1958] EA 741
  • Churanjilal & Co. Vs 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.

Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited v Erosia Concepts Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1632 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 391 (14 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.