Wakilii

Dalaus Katongole t a Ngoleda Stores v Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1057 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 222 · 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 a summary suit arising from Civil Suit No. 430 of 2025
Decision
Applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (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 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations steady — 4 citing cases on record, 4 in the most recent three data years. 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

The court held that the applicant raised triable issues of law and fact regarding the validity of the mortgage, alleged fraud and illegal deductions, and entitlement to set-off. The applicant was granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the summary suit, as the facts placed the matter outside the ambit of Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit

Facts

The applicant, a customer of the respondent bank since 2012, obtained 52 loan facilities between 2016 and 2022. The latest facility of UGX 544,938,649 was disbursed on 31 October 2022. The applicant requested information about his loan accounts in August 2024 and commissioned an investigative audit which allegedly revealed fraud, illegal deductions, and overcharges totalling UGX 2,153,715,049. The applicant halted loan repayments and demanded a refund. The respondent filed a summary suit seeking recovery of UGX 427,593,725. The applicant contended that the mortgage was void because the certificate of title had been cancelled in Civil Suit No. 62 of 2010, that his wife's spousal consent forms were forged, and that he was entitled to set-off against the alleged overcharges. The respondent denied the allegations and argued that the applicant had no meritorious defence.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend High Court Civil Suit No. 430 of 2025.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Applicant is hereby granted unconditional leave to appear and defend High Court Civil Suit No. 430 of 2025.
  • The Applicant is ordered to file and serve his Written Statement of Defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Defend — Test for Granting Leave
For leave to appear and defend a summary suit to be granted, the 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 a legal trial, that is, a matter that is subject to or liable to judicial examination in court.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Defence — Standard Required
A defence raised by an applicant should not be averred in a manner that appears to be needlessly bald, vague, or sketchy. Where the applicant raises a good defence, the plaintiff is barred from obtaining summary judgment. The defendant is not bound to show a good defence on the merits but should satisfy the court that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Scope of Summary Procedure
Summary procedure is only 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.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Triable Issues — Effect on Summary Procedure
Where facts and evidence adduced by both parties disclose triable issues of law and fact that ought to be determined by the court, and the facts need to be proved to ascertain the amount outstanding, the matter is placed outside the ambit of Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the applicant must be granted leave to defend.
Civil Procedure — Electronic Filing — Service via ECCMIS
Court documents can be served via ECCMIS. Where parties are linked on ECCMIS and can access documents filed pursuant to court directives, service is deemed effective and arguments that documents were not served are without merit.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Children of Africa v Sarick Construction Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 134 of 2016)
  • Jamil Ssenyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
  • Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd v Bombay Garage [1958] EA 741
  • Churanjilal & Co. v A.H Adam (1) [1950] 17 EACA 92

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Dalaus Katongole t a Ngoleda Stores v Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1057 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 222 (31 July 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.