Wakilii

I.K Enterprises Limited & 2 Others v Absa Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 404 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 177 · 2024 Application Dismissed — Summary Judgment Entered 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 HCCS 86 of 2024
Decision
Summary judgment entered against all applicants jointly and severally for the sums claimed in the main suit

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 court dismissed the application for leave to appear and defend and entered summary judgment for the respondent bank. The applicants failed to demonstrate a triable issue on any of their defences: they did not show that loan disbursement was delayed contrary to the agreement; the facility documents clearly provided for 18.5% interest (2% above 16.5% base rate); and the 2nd and 3rd applicants signed the facility agreement as both directors and guarantors, evidencing their intention to guarantee the 1st applicant's obligations. The settlement agreement signed by all applicants acknowledged the debt and estopped them from disputing it.

Outcome

Summary judgment entered against all applicants jointly and severally for the sums claimed in the main suit

Facts

The 1st applicant obtained a multi-option loan facility of UGX 321,307,550 from the respondent bank in September 2021 to facilitate supply contracts with the Ministry of Defence. The 2nd and 3rd applicants, directors of the 1st applicant, signed the facility agreement as guarantors. The facility was repayable in 120 days at 18.5% interest per annum. The 1st applicant defaulted on repayment. In September 2023, all applicants signed a settlement agreement acknowledging indebtedness of UGX 302,577,054, agreeing to pay in three monthly instalments. The applicants failed to make the agreed instalments. The respondent filed a summary suit. The applicants sought leave to defend, alleging delayed disbursement, disputed interest rates, and denial that the 2nd and 3rd applicants guaranteed the debt.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the summary suit.
  2. Whether the 3rd Applicant properly applied for leave to appear and defend despite not filing a separate affidavit.
  3. Whether the respondent bank delayed disbursement of the loan facility in breach of the agreement.
  4. Whether the applicable interest rate was 2% or 18.5% per annum.
  5. Whether the 2nd and 3rd Applicants guaranteed repayment of the 1st Applicant's debt to the respondent.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
  • Judgment entered in the main suit for the entire sums claimed and costs against the Applicants jointly and severally.

Rules and key headnotes

Summary Procedure — Order 36 CPR — Threshold for Grant of Leave to Appear and Defend
An applicant for leave to appear and defend a summary suit must show either that they have a defence to the claim or that there is a triable issue, whether arising from a contestation caused by their defence or from some other issue of fact or law affecting the matter. It is not sufficient to simply deny indebtedness without more, as a general denial is not itself a valid defence under the Civil Procedure Rules.
Evidence — Affidavits — Standing of Non-Party Deponents
The law does not confine the adducing of evidence by way of affidavit to a party to litigation. A party can have another person, including an advocate practicing in a firm retained to represent the litigant, testify for that party by affidavit, as long as the matters they seek to testify on are within their own knowledge or belief (for interlocutory applications). There is no rule that only a party to litigation should testify in support of their case.
Loan Facilities — Access Facilities vs Provision Facilities — Utilization Requests
There is a distinction between provision facilities (where funds are disbursed at once or in tranches upon execution) and access facilities (where the bank makes available resources which the customer must request utilization from over time according to agreed procedures). In access facilities, the customer must demonstrate compliance with the agreed utilization procedure before alleging breach by the bank for failure to disburse.
Estoppel — Settlement Agreements — Acknowledgement of Debt
Where parties execute a settlement agreement acknowledging a specific debt and agreeing to payment terms, the debtor is estopped from subsequently asserting that the computation of indebtedness was erroneous when it would be unjust or inequitable to do so. A party who has represented that a figure was due and owing cannot later raise objections to that calculation without demonstrating traditional vitiating factors of contract.
Guarantees — Liability of Guarantors — Simultaneous Enforcement of Securities
Under section 71 of the Contracts Act 2010, the liability of a guarantor is to the extent to which the principal debtor is liable and takes effect upon default by the principal debtor. Unless there is a contrary provision of law, a mortgagee is entitled to pursue all securities available simultaneously and does not need to first attempt recovery or fail to recover against the principal borrower before pursuing the guarantor(s).
Interpretation of Contracts — Ascertaining Intention of Parties
The court ascertains the intention of parties by examining the words they used and giving them their ordinary meaning in their contractual context. Effect is to be given to every word in the order in which they appear. Words should not be added which are not there, and words which are present should not be changed, taken out or moved, unless it becomes clear that the language used creates an ambiguity which cannot be solved otherwise.
Pleadings — Particularity and Precision — Applications for Leave to Defend
An applicant for leave to appear and defend must, in their pleadings, itemize their defence with sufficient particularity and precision so that the applicant's answer to the specially endorsed plaint can be clearly made out. Proposed grounds of defence should not be imprecise, general or evasive, as the court may deny leave where this is the case.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (24)

  • Post Bank (U) Ltd v Abdul Ssozi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2015)
  • [1969] EA 691
  • [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Saw v Hakim 5 TLR 72
  • Ray v Barker 4 Ex DI 279
  • (1950) 17 EACA 92
  • (1938) 5 EACA 89
  • Pamela Anyoti v Root Capital Inc (Miscellaneous Application No. 844 of 2023)
  • Photo Focus (U) Ltd v Group Four Security Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2000)
  • Ecobank Uganda Limited v Kalson's Agrovet Concern Ltd & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 573 of 2016)
  • George Begumisa v East African Development Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 451 of 2010)
  • Allan Makula v First Finance Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1407 of 2022)
  • ATC Uganda Limited v Smile Communications Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 621 of 2023)
  • Habib Oil Limited & Others v Standard Chartered Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 872 of 2015)
  • Visare Uganda Limited v Muwema & Co Advocates (Miscellaneous Application No. 827 & 828 of 2023)
  • Night Nagujja v Namuwonge Agnes & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1878 of 2021)
  • [1976] 1 All ER 902
  • Barclays Bank of Uganda v Jing Hong & Guo Odong (High Court Civil Suit No. 35 of 2009)
  • [1973] AC 345
  • Paul Kasagga and Another v Barclays Bank (Uganda) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 113 of 2008)
  • Uganda Finance Trust Limited v Alloys Muhumuza & Another (High Court Civil Appeal No. 111 of 2015)
  • [2011] 1 All ER 175
  • [1970] AC 572
  • Andrew Akol v Noah Onzivua (High Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2014)

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.

I.K Enterprises Limited & 2 Others v Absa Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 404 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 177 (24 June 2024)
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.