Wakilii

Cwezi Properties Limited v Tulip Consultancy Limited (Miscellaneous Application 807 of 2013)

High Court · [2015] UGCOMMC 300 · 2015 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under Order 36 Rules 3, 4 and Order 52 Rules 1, 2, & 3 CPR seeking to strike out the plaint and for leave to appear and defend a summary suit for liquidated demand
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff for the liquidated demand claimed in the summary suit.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 in summary proceedings under Order 36, there is no power to strike out a plaint. The application to strike out was dismissed. The court found that the contract and its addenda provided for payment periods but did not make payment contingent on securing financing. The applicant admitted indebtedness and failed to show any triable defence on the merits, points of law, or disputed facts. The application for leave to appear and defend was dismissed. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff in the underlying suit with costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff for the liquidated demand claimed in the summary suit.

Facts

The respondent sold leasehold property comprised in LRV 2953 Folio 2 Plot 3 Gasper Oda Street, Ntinda to the applicant under an agreement dated 15 November 2011. The applicant made part payment but failed to pay the balance of the purchase price. The parties executed two addenda extending payment deadlines and agreeing to interest charges for late payment. The applicant transferred USD 435,000 under the second addendum but failed to pay the outstanding balance of USD 175,000 plus accrued interest. The respondent filed a summary suit for the liquidated debt. The applicant sought leave to defend, arguing that the suit was premature for non-exhaustion of dispute resolution mechanisms, that the contract was contingent on securing financing and thus unenforceable, and that the interest charges were unconscionable.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint should be struck out for failure to disclose a cause of action.
  2. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appear and defend the summary suit.
  3. Whether the contract between the parties was contingent on the applicant obtaining financing and thus unenforceable under section 28 of the Contracts Act 2010.
  4. Whether the interest charged under the addenda was unconscionable and unenforceable.

Orders

  • Application to strike out the plaint dismissed.
  • Application for leave to appear and defend dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 505 of 2013 in the terms and for orders prayed for.
  • The defendant in the suit to pay costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Order 36 CPR — Power to Strike Out Plaint
In proceedings under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules for summary judgment, there is no power to strike out any part of the claim, though summary judgment may only be given for relief within the scope of Order 36 Rule 2.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Grant of Leave
Where a suit is brought under summary procedure on a specially endorsed plaint, the defendant is granted leave to appear and defend if able to show a good defence on merit, or that there is a difficult point of law 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 into account to determine, or any other circumstances showing reasonable grounds of bonafide defence.
Contract Law — Contingent Contracts — Section 28 Contracts Act 2010 — Distinction Between Payment Extension Clauses and Contingency
A contract clause providing that the payment period may be extended if the purchaser communicates delay on the part of its financing bank does not make the contract contingent on the purchaser obtaining financing. Such a clause provides for an extension of time, not a condition precedent to enforceability.
Contract Law — Interest — Unconscionability — Agreed Interest Rates
Where parties have freely agreed to interest rates in addenda to a contract as consequences of late payment, and there is no evidence of factors vitiating consent, such agreed interest rates will not be set aside as unconscionable merely on the assertion that they are harsh.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (7)

  • Lilia Ongeza K v General Services Limited & 2 others (High Court Civil Suit No. 106 of 2011)
  • Geoffrey Gatete & Angella Nakigonya v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
  • Dembe Trading Enterprises Ltd v Welcome Impex Uganda Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 246 of 2000)
  • Uganda Transporters Co. Ltd v Count De La Pasture [1954] EACA 163
  • Baganja & Another v Nenley Property Developers Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 47 of 2012)
  • Kotecha v Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Maria Odido v Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 645 of 2008)

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

↓ Download PDF

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

Cwezi Properties Limited v Tulip Consultancy Limited (Miscellaneous Application 807 of 2013) [2015] UGCommC 300 (17 April 2015)
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.