Wakilii

David Lugya and Another v Admark Management Services Ltd (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 7 of 2020)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 18 · 2022 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 a loan default claim
Decision
Applicants granted unconditional leave to defend the main suit; matter to proceed to full trial

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 a summary suit where the applicants demonstrated a triable issue regarding loan repayments. The plaintiff failed to provide a reconciled financial statement showing amounts advanced, repaid, and outstanding. The applicants produced deposit slips evidencing repayments totalling UGX 49,474,000 against a principal of UGX 30,000,000, disputing the plaintiff's claim of UGX 99,889,053. The court held that genuine triable issues existed that could not be settled summarily.

Outcome

Applicants granted unconditional leave to defend the main suit; matter to proceed to full trial

Facts

On 18 August 2018, the first applicant entered a consolidated loan agreement with the respondent for UGX 30,000,000 plus outstanding interest of UGX 13,651,740, repayable in six monthly instalments at 18% interest per month. The loan was guaranteed by the second applicant. The respondent filed a summary suit claiming the first applicant defaulted, with an outstanding balance of UGX 99,889,053. The applicants contended they had repaid over UGX 49,474,000, exceeding the principal and accrued interest, and disputed the claimed amount. The respondent opposed the application, arguing the applicants admitted the contract and failed to show a plausible defence.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants have a bona fide triable issue of fact or law and reasonable grounds of defence to the claim.
  2. Whether there are remedies available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend allowed.
  • Applicants to file written statement of defence to Civil Suit No. 57 of 2019 before 16 November 2022.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Unconditional Leave
For unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit to be granted under Order 36 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the applicant must show by affidavit that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law, and must disclose sufficient grounds of defence with the intended written statement of defence annexed to the application.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Burden on Plaintiff — Reconciled Financial Statement
In a summary suit for loan recovery where the defendant claims to have made repayments, the plaintiff must attach a reconciled financial statement clearly showing amounts advanced, amounts repaid, and the outstanding balance including interest, to establish a liquidated claim suitable for summary judgment.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Evidence of Defence — Deposit Slips as Prima Facie Proof
A defendant resisting summary judgment must not rely on mere assertions but must produce evidence to support the defence. Deposit slips evidencing repayments constitute sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue where the plaintiff does not acknowledge those repayments in the specially endorsed plaint.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • Makula Interglobal Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Sembule Investments v. Uganda Baati
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Mukoome Agencies [1982] HCB 22
  • Sembule Investments Ltd v Uganda Baati Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 664 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

David Lugya and Another v Admark Management Services Ltd (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 7 of 2020) [2022] UGHC 18 (1 November 2022)
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.