Wakilii

Festo Ivaibi v Bayonga Jackie (Miscellaneous Application No. 1250 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 351 · 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. 533 of 2025
Decision
Applicant granted unconditional leave to defend the main suit and ordered to file defence within 15 days

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

The High Court granted the applicant unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit for recovery of UGX 9,248,000,000. The court found triable issues of law and fact including whether the applicant was personally indebted to the respondent, whether the respondent had a cause of action against the applicant in respect of a bounced cheque issued by a third party guarantor, and whether the claimed interest rate of 5% per month was manifestly high and illegal.

Outcome

Applicant granted unconditional leave to defend the main suit and ordered to file defence within 15 days

Facts

The respondent filed a summary suit seeking to recover UGX 9,248,000,000 arising from a bounced cheque. The applicant applied for leave to appear and defend, denying indebtedness and contending that no agreement existed between the parties requiring him to pay that sum. The respondent claimed the debt arose from a business investment relationship and was evidenced by a memorandum of understanding dated 9 February 2024 wherein the applicant agreed to refund USD 2,392,500. The agreement was guaranteed by Joanne Nanteza Ivaibi trading as Ivaibi BTC Business Point, who issued two postdated cheques including the bounced cheque. The applicant disputed personal liability, arguing the cheque was issued by a separate entity and that receipts showed payments to Mitrosoft Corporation Limited, a distinct legal entity. The applicant also challenged the claimed interest rate of 5% per month as manifestly high and illegal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of leave to appear and defend High Court Civil Suit No. 533 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. 533 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

Summary Procedure — Leave to Defend — Test for Granting Leave
For leave to appear and defend a summary suit to be granted under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an 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 legal trial and arises when a material proposition of law or fact is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.
Summary Procedure — Defence Must Not Be Vague — Court Does Not Weigh Evidence
A defence raised by an applicant should not be averred in a manner that appears needlessly bald, vague, or sketchy. Where the defence is based on disputed material facts or new facts constituting a defence, the court does not attempt to decide these issues or determine whether there is a balance of probabilities in favour of one party or the other at the leave stage.
Summary Procedure — Scope of Summary Procedure — Clear and Straightforward Cases Only
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.
Summary Procedure — Triable Issues — Personal Liability and Cause of Action
Where a plaintiff seeks to recover on a bounced cheque issued by a third party guarantor in the name of a business entity, and the defendant disputes personal liability and the existence of an agreement requiring payment of the claimed sum, triable issues arise regarding whether the defendant is personally indebted and whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant in respect of the bounced cheque.
Interest — Manifestly High Interest — Triable Issue
Where a plaintiff claims interest at the rate of 5% per month and the defendant contests this as manifestly high, illegal and unenforceable, a triable issue arises as to whether the interest rate is manifestly high and illegal.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (9)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Uganda Micro Entrepreneurs Association Ltd and Others v The Micro Finance Support Centre Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 125 of 2005)
  • Benon Tamusanqe and Another v Exim Bank (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1213 of 2016)
  • Abubakar Kato Kasule v Tomson Muhwezi (Civil Suit No. 167 of 1990)
  • Post Bank (U) Limited v Abdu Ssozi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2015)
  • Jamil Ssenyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd v Bombay Garage [1958] EA 741
  • Churanjilal & Co. v A.H Adam (1950) 17 EACA 92

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.

Festo Ivaibi v Bayonga Jackie (Miscellaneous Application No. 1250 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 351 (7 August 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.