Wakilii

Gloria Turyamureeba v Bemuga Forwarders Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1095 of 2015)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 300 · 2017 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend arising from Civil Suit No. 801 of 2016
Decision
Applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend; matter referred for mediation after filing of defence

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 held that the applicant raised triable issues regarding whether she borrowed USD 35,000 in her personal capacity or on behalf of C & S Upholstery Limited, and whether she was the proper party to be sued. These issues could not be determined summarily and required investigation through trial. The court granted unconditional leave to appear and defend.

Outcome

Applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend; matter referred for mediation after filing of defence

Facts

The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 801 of 2016 against the applicant for recovery of USD 35,000 allegedly borrowed by the applicant personally. The applicant applied for unconditional leave to appear and defend the suit, contending that she borrowed the money on behalf of C & S Upholstery Limited in her capacity as director, not personally. The respondent opposed the application on grounds that the applicant personally acknowledged receipt of the loan and promised repayment. A loan agreement/acknowledgment dated 30 May 2016 was signed by the applicant as "Gloria Turyamureeba" and described her as "a Director in UPHOLSTERY UGANDA LIMITED". The parties disputed whether the applicant acted in her personal capacity or as agent for the company. The applicant relied on principles of agency law and argued the company was a disclosed principal. The respondent argued the wording of the acknowledgment demonstrated personal liability.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the suit under Order 36 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the applicant demonstrated a good defence or triable issues that could not be determined in a summary manner.
  3. Whether the applicant was personally liable or acted as agent for a disclosed principal (C & S Upholstery Limited) in borrowing the sum of USD 35,000.
  4. Whether the respondent sued the correct party.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • The applicant is granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 801 of 2016.
  • The applicant shall file her written statement of defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of this ruling.
  • The case shall thereafter be referred for mediation proceedings.
  • Costs shall abide the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Summary Suits — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Grant of Unconditional Leave
For a defendant to be granted unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit, the defendant must demonstrate a good defence on the merits or raise triable issues that cannot be determined in a summary manner. The court must be satisfied that if the facts alleged by the defendant were established, there would be a plausible defence.
Summary Suits — Purpose and Scope — Investigation of Defence
In an application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit, the court is not required to determine the merits of the suit at that stage. The purpose of the application is not to prove the defendant's defence but to ask for an opportunity to prove it through trial. The court must investigate the evidence submitted by the defendant to establish whether a good defence exists, and leave shall not be granted merely because several allegations of fact or law are made in the defendant's affidavit.
Director Liability — Personal Capacity versus Agency — Triable Issue
Where a loan agreement is signed by a director and describes the signatory both as an individual and as a director of a company, and there is dispute as to whether the director acted in a personal capacity or as agent for the company, this raises a triable issue regarding personal liability versus agency that requires investigation through trial and cannot be determined summarily.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (14)

  • Makula Interglobal Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda (1985) HCB 55
  • Abu Baker Kato Kasule v Tomson Muhwezi (1992-93) HCB 212
  • Salmon v Salmon
  • Friendship Container Manufactures Ltd v Mitchell Courts (K) Ltd (2001) 2 EA 338
  • Ram v Singh (1933) 5 ULR 76
  • Zola & Another v Ralli Brothers Ltd & Another [1969] EA 591
  • Sembule Investments Ltd v Uganda Baati Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 654 of 2009)
  • Kotecha v Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Saw v Hakim 5 TLR 72
  • Ray v Barker 4 Ex Dr 279
  • Corporation Insurance Co. Ltd v Nyali Beach Hotel Ltd [1995-98] EA 7
  • Bhaker Kotecha v Adam Muhammed (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2001)
  • Geoffrey Gatete and Another v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
  • Rajiv Kumar v Patel Sureshbhai (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 815 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gloria Turyamureeba v Bemuga Forwarders Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1095 of 2015) [2017] UGCommC 300 (3 April 2017)
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.