Deox Tibeingana t a Tibeingana & Co. Advocates v Centenary Rural Development Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 872 of 2021)

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.

Holding

The High Court dismissed an application for unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit for recovery of outstanding principal and interest on a motor vehicle finance leasing agreement. The court held that the applicant failed to raise any triable issue of fact or law or demonstrate a plausible defence on the merits. The applicant's assertion of having made payments exceeding UGX 70,000,000 was unsupported by evidence and constituted a mere denial of liability. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff for UGX 197,921,987.69 plus interest and costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed; summary judgment entered for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed

Facts

On 15 January 2019, the applicant applied to the respondent bank for a Cente Auto Lease to finance the purchase of a motor vehicle. On 18 January 2019, the respondent accepted the offer and advanced UGX 170,033,898 at 21% per annum interest, with the vehicle pledged as security. The applicant undertook to repay in monthly instalments of UGX 10,310,017 for 24 months. The applicant defaulted in September and October 2019. The respondent issued a demand notice on 30 October 2019 requiring payment of arrears and interest totalling UGX 19,832,088 by 7 November 2019. The applicant failed to pay. As at 14 October 2020, the outstanding principal and accrued interest totalled UGX 197,921,987.69. The respondent filed a summary suit for recovery. The applicant applied for leave to appear and defend, claiming to have paid over UGX 70,000,000 but providing no documentary evidence.

Issues

1. Whether the Applicant raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of leave to appear and defend the suit?
2. What remedies are available?

Orders

• Application for leave to appear and defend dismissed.
• Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant.
• The Plaintiff is entitled to a sum of UGX 197,921,987.69.
• Interest awarded at Court rate from the date of judgment until payment in full.
• Costs of the application and the suit awarded to the Respondent/Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 36 Rule 4
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rules 1 & 3
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 15 Rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 5 Rule 1(2)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 36 Rule 3(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 36 Rule 5

Cases cited (7)

• Kanyabwera v Tumwebwa [2005] 2 EA 86
• Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
• Kotecha v Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
• Post Bank (U) Limited v Abdul Ssozi (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2015)
• Ndibazza Naima v Acacia Finance Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1144 of 2014)
• Saw v Hakim 5 TLR 72
• Ray v Barker 4 Ex DI 279

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