Hope Development Initiative Ltd v Yunus Social Business (U) Ltd (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 1007 of 2019)

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

Held that the applicant raised triable issues warranting leave to appear and defend. Where a defendant asserts payment of outstanding sums and the plaintiff denies it, and where questions arise as to whether the plaintiff should have first resorted to arbitration before moving court, these constitute triable issues requiring determination in the main suit. Leave to appear and defend is granted where a single bona fide defence is identified.

Outcome

Application granted; matter to proceed to full hearing on the merits

Facts

The respondent filed a summary suit (Civil Suit No. 847 of 2019) claiming USD 183,688 from the applicant arising from a credit facility agreement. The applicant averred that it obtained a credit facility of USD 212,437 and fully cleared it. The applicant alleged that the respondent refused to provide account statements despite requests, charged compounded interest while not being a registered money lender, and failed to explore arbitration as provided in the loan agreement. The respondent denied the applicant's assertions and attached demand notices to which the applicant made no response. The applicant sought leave to appear and defend, asserting it had triable issues of fact and law. The respondent opposed, arguing the applicant disclosed no plausible defence but indicated willingness to proceed to arbitration if the court so directed.

Issues

1. Whether the application raises triable issues for which the applicant should be granted leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 847 of 2019.

Orders

• Leave to appear and defend granted.
• Applicant ordered to file written statement of defence within fifteen days from the date of the ruling.
• Respondent may file a rejoinder according to law.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (13)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 rule 4
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 rule 8
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 3
• Tier 4 Microfinance Institutions and Money Lenders Act 2016 s.86(1)
• Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.3(4)
• Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.5(1)
• Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.9
• Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.11
• Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.40

Cases cited (6)

• Makula International Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda (1985) HCB 65
• Benon Tomusange & Another v Exim Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1213 of 2016)
• Sembule Investments Ltd v Uganda Baati Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 664 of 2009)
• Emmanuel Mugabe v Saava Stephen Kikonyogo & Joseph Kigala (administrators of the estates of the late Nkizi Nalinnya) & Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 65 of 2012)
• Kotecha v Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
• Corporate Insurance Co Ltd v Nyali Beach Hotel Ltd [1995-1998] EA

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