Children Of Africa v Sarick Construction Ltd (MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION No. 134 OF 2016)
Observed later treatment
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
Held that leave to appear and defend a summary suit will be granted conditionally where the applicant fails to fully disclose the nature and grounds of the defence and the material facts on which it is based. Where the defence is stated in vague and general terms without specific facts, and where the applicant appears to have only a partial defence, the court may impose conditions including payment of money into court before granting leave.
Outcome
Leave to appear and defend granted conditionally on deposit of half the sum claimed in court within thirty days
Facts
On 15 October 2015, the parties entered into a building contract by which the respondent undertook to construct six blocks of classrooms, dormitories, laboratories, patient wards and offices at a cost of UGX 28,880,336,335. The applicant failed or refused to pay an interim certificate of completion in the sum of UGX 7,727,690,810. The respondent filed a summary suit to recover that sum plus accumulated interest of UGX 669,733,308 and further interest at 26% per annum. The applicant contended that the respondent's work was poorly done with poor quality materials and defects in workmanship, and that the interim certificate was fraudulently obtained. The respondent retained an independent expert who verified the technical specifications and found no fraud. A second interim certificate bearing the same figures was issued on 7 July 2016. By email dated 18 August 2016, the applicant undertook to pay once funds were remitted by donors. The applicant applied for unconditional leave to appear and defend the suit.
Issues
- Whether the applicant satisfied the requirement for full disclosure of the nature and grounds of defence and the material facts on which it is based.
- Whether unconditional leave to appear and defend should be granted where the defence is averred in a vague, bald or sketchy manner.
- Whether conditional leave should be granted where the applicant has only a partial defence to the claim.
Orders
- Application allowed subject to conditions.
- Applicant to deposit half the sum claimed (UGX 3,863,845,405) in court within thirty days from the date of the order.
- Failure to comply with the deposit condition will result in summary judgment being entered in favour of the respondent.
- Hearing of the suit fixed for 17 October 2019 at 9:00 am, conditional on compliance.
- Parties to file a joint memorandum of scheduling before the hearing date.
- Costs of the application to abide the result of the suit.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
Cases cited (4)
- M.M.K Engineering v Mantrust Uganda Ltd (H.C. Misc. Application No. 128 of 2012)
- Bhaker Kotecha v Adam Muhammed [2002] 1 EA 112
- Makula Interglobal Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
- Jamil Senyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (H.C. Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
Cases citing this judgment (1)
How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.