Wakilii

Housing Finance Bank Ltd v MTK (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 15 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 67 · 2021 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Summary judgment following dismissal of defendant's application for leave to appear and defend
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff for the liquidated sum with interest and costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 8 (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 8 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 8 citing cases on record, 5 in the most recent three data years. 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

Where a defendant's application for leave to appear and defend is dismissed for failure to disclose triable issues, the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment under Order 36 rule 5 CPR. The court entered judgment for the principal sum with contractual interest where the debt was established by a deed of undertaking and corporate guarantee and was not challenged.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff for the liquidated sum with interest and costs

Facts

The plaintiff bank granted a loan of UGX 250,000,000 to Francis Xavier Kitaka Ssebampitako on 28 January 2019, repayable in monthly instalments over thirty-six months. The defendant employer issued a deed of undertaking on 29 January 2019 committing to remit the borrower's terminal benefits upon termination of employment to settle outstanding loan obligations. On 4 March 2019, the defendant also issued a corporate guarantee to pay all moneys and discharge all debts of the borrower on demand. The borrower died, and the defendant failed to remit terminal benefits or honour the guarantee despite demand notices. The plaintiff claimed UGX 207,326,980.23 as the outstanding balance. The defendant applied for leave to appear and defend (MA No. 62 of 2021), which was dismissed for failure to disclose triable issues.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the liquidated sum claimed pursuant to the deed of undertaking and corporate guarantee.

Orders

  • Judgment entered against the defendant in the sum of UGX 207,326,980.23.
  • Interest awarded at 23% per annum from the date of default until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Judgment — Order 36 CPR — Effect of Refusal to Grant Leave to Defend
Where the court refuses an application by a defendant for leave to appear and defend under Order 36 CPR, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as described in Order 36 rule 3.
Banking & Finance — Loan Recovery — Corporate Guarantee and Deed of Undertaking
A corporate guarantee and deed of undertaking by an employer to remit an employee-borrower's terminal benefits to discharge loan obligations are enforceable instruments that establish the guarantor's liability upon the borrower's default or death.
Contract Law — Contractual Interest — Enforcement of Interest Provisions
Where a loan agreement provides for a specific rate of interest, the court will award interest at the contractual rate from the date of default until payment in full.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases citing this judgment (8)

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.

Housing Finance Bank Ltd v MTK (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 15 of 2021) [2021] UGCommC 67 (30 April 2021)
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.