Wakilii

Empire for Trade and Investments v Kiboko Enterprises Limited (Misc. Application No. 2832 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 233 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed 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. 1403 of 2023
Decision
Judgment entered for respondent on principal claim of USD 44,516.40; matter to proceed to trial on interest claim only

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 court refused unconditional leave to appear and defend the principal claim for USD 44,516.40, finding that the applicant's managing director had expressly admitted the debt by email and that the applicant failed to establish a bona fide defence. Judgment was entered for the respondent in the sum of USD 44,516.40. However, the court granted unconditional leave to defend the claim for interest at 24%, holding that interest claims not founded on contract raise triable issues undeterminable by summary procedure under Order 36 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Judgment entered for respondent on principal claim of USD 44,516.40; matter to proceed to trial on interest claim only

Facts

The respondent ordered 11 containers of assorted goods from the applicant for USD 149,738, which were fully paid for, with shipment agreed within 3 months. The applicant shipped 10 containers, leaving 1 container worth USD 15,930 unshipped. The applicant then proposed a new order of 7 containers to be shipped with the remaining one and requested 30% advance payment of USD 28,586.40, which the respondent paid. The applicant failed to ship these goods. The respondent filed a summary suit for USD 44,516.40 (the unshipped goods). The applicant applied for leave to defend, claiming it was not indebted and had a counterclaim for USD 84,000 arising from 6 containers it produced but which the respondent allegedly failed to pay for, forcing the applicant to sell them at a loss. The respondent produced email correspondence dated 13 March 2023 in which the applicant's managing director admitted the debt of USD 44,516.40 and proposed issuing shares as settlement.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the suit?

Orders

  • Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend the principal claim dismissed.
  • Judgment entered for the respondent against the applicant in the sum of USD 44,516.40.
  • Applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the respondent's claim for interest at the rate of 24% from October 2021 till payment in full.
  • Applicant to file written statement of defence in respect of the interest claim within ten days from the date of this order.
  • Respondent may file pleadings in reply within seven days of receipt of the applicant's defence.
  • Parties to file witness statements, trial bundles and joint memorandum of scheduling before the hearing date.
  • Hearing of the suit fixed for 27th August 2025 at 9:00 am.
  • Costs of the application to abide the result of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Summary Suits — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Granting Leave
An applicant for leave to appear and defend a summary suit must demonstrate by affidavit that there exists a bona fide triable issue of fact or law. The applicant need not show a good defence on the merits but must satisfy the court that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried. The court shall not enter upon the trial of the issues disclosed at this stage.
Admissions — Effect of Admission by Party or Agent
Pursuant to Section 57 of the Evidence Act, no fact requires proof in any proceeding if such fact is admitted by the parties or their agents either orally at the hearing or in writing prior to the hearing. Where a party has unequivocally admitted a debt by correspondence, that party is estopped from advancing contradictory or unsubstantiated assertions inconsistent with that admission.
Summary Suits — Burden of Proof — Requirement for Documentary Evidence
In civil proceedings, particularly those involving contractual and transactional matters, affidavits must be supported by documentary evidence to corroborate factual allegations rather than mere assertions. A party seeking judicial determination of any legal right or liability contingent upon certain facts must adduce evidence proving the existence of those facts under Section 101 of the Evidence Act.
Summary Suits — Interest Claims — Triable Issues
Under Order 36 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, in an action instituted by summary suit, interest on a liquidated amount may only be recovered where the underlying agreement expressly provides for such interest. Where the claim for interest is not premised on any contract, it raises a triable issue undeterminable by summary procedure, and the defendant must be granted leave to defend that claim.
Summary Suits — Partial Summary Judgment — Severance of Claims
Where a plaint endorsed for summary procedure contains claims correctly endorsed and other claims that raise triable issues, the court may deal with the claims correctly specially endorsed as if no other claim had been included therein and allow the action to proceed as respects the residue of the claim. The court has no power to strike out any part of the claim but is unable to give summary judgment for any relief not within the scope of Order 36 rule 2.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (8)

  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Children of Africa v Sarick Construction Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 134 of 2016)
  • Habibullah Mohamed Yousuff v Indian Bank [1999] 2 SLR (R) 880
  • UMEME Ltd v Justice Anup Singh Choudhry (Miscellaneous Application No. 736 of 2021)
  • Begumisa George v East African Development Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 451 of 2010)
  • Arjabu Kasule v F. T. Kawesa [1957] EA 611
  • E. M. Cornwell & Co. Ltd v Shantaguari Dahyabhai Desai (1941) 6 ULR 103
  • Uganda Transport Co. Ltd v Count de la Pasture [1954] 21 EACA 163

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Empire for Trade and Investments v Kiboko Enterprises Limited (Misc. Application No. 2832 of 2023) [2025] UGCommC 233 (17 June 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.