Wakilii

Great Lakes Coffee Company Ltd and Others v KCB Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2099 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 463 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal against dismissal of application for leave to appear and defend in summary suit
Decision
Applicants granted leave to appeal the dismissal of their application for leave to appear and defend

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 the applicants leave to appeal against the dismissal of their application for leave to appear and defend in a summary suit for debt recovery. The court found that the questions raised by the applicants merited granting leave, notwithstanding the respondent's arguments that the applicants had no arguable grounds and that guarantors are immediately liable upon default without requiring prior recourse against the principal debtor. The application was allowed with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Applicants granted leave to appeal the dismissal of their application for leave to appear and defend

Facts

KCB Bank Uganda Limited filed Civil Suit No. 261 of 2024 under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules against Great Lakes Coffee Company Ltd and two guarantors (Andreas Nicolaides and Stamos Konstatinos) for recovery of USD 1,104,419 as outstanding debt from a loan facility. The applicants filed Miscellaneous Application No. 701 of 2024 for leave to appear and defend, which was dismissed on 3 September 2025, and judgment was entered in the main suit. The applicants then filed this application on 15 September 2025 seeking leave to appeal the dismissal. The applicants argued that the respondent should have pursued the principal debtor first, that the principal debtor was undergoing an allegedly illegal receivership, and that the trial judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that guarantors are immediately liable upon default without requiring prior recourse against the principal debtor, and that the applicants had not demonstrated arguable grounds with a reasonable chance of success.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be granted leave to appeal against the dismissal of their application for leave to appear and defend.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal allowed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Test for Granting Leave
An applicant seeking leave to appeal must show either that the intended appeal has a reasonable chance of success or that the applicant has arguable grounds of appeal and has not been guilty of dilatory conduct.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Real Prospect of Success
A real prospect of success means that the prospect must be realistic rather than fanciful. The court considering an application for leave to appeal is not required to analyse whether the grounds of the proposed appeal will succeed, but merely whether there is a real prospect of success.
Civil Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Novel Questions of Principle
Leave to appeal should not be refused simply because the trial judge is of the opinion that the decision is correct. If the question is one of principle and a novel one, ordinarily leave to appeal should be granted.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (9)

  • Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Application No. 16 of 1996)
  • Eco Bank (U) Ltd v Emco Works Limited and 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 860 of 2018)
  • Zimba Logistics and Hardware Ltd v Tian-tang Group Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1138 of 2020)
  • Omaya John Samson v Elijo Odongwun and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 044 of 2021)
  • John Mugisha and 3 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0481 of 2008)
  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd and Others v Dresdner Bank AG [1971] 1 EA 17
  • Marts JP Consult SMC Limited v Airtel Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1481 of 2021)
  • Bridge Investments Limited v Middle East Hospital and Shopping Complex Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 2019)
  • Matayo Okumu v Fransisko Anudhe and 2 Others [1979] HCB 229

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Great Lakes Coffee Company Ltd and Others v KCB Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2099 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 463 (15 December 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.