Irumba v Kazooba (Miscellaneous Application 53 of 2024)

Observed later treatment

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 where an applicant demonstrates by affidavit a bonafide triable issue of fact or law in response to a summary suit, unconditional leave to appear and defend must be granted. The applicant established a triable defence that the respondent himself had breached the sales agreement by failing to complete works on the property, preventing the applicant from paying the balance. The concurrent filing of Civil Suit No. 37 of 2024 for breach of contract arising from the same facts confirmed the existence of genuine issues requiring full trial. The respondent was not entitled to summary judgment.

Outcome

Applicant granted unconditional leave to defend Civil Suit No. 36 of 2024

Facts

On 22 November 2023, the respondent sold property at Rwengoma, Fort Portal, to the applicant for UGX 380,000,000. The agreement required the applicant to pay UGX 170,000,000 by 5 December 2023 and the balance of UGX 210,000,000 by 31 March 2024, after the respondent completed outstanding works on the building. The applicant paid the initial sum as agreed. The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 36 of 2024 claiming the balance of UGX 190,000,000, alleging the applicant had taken possession but failed to pay. The applicant filed this application for leave to defend, asserting the respondent had not completed the building works as agreed and therefore the balance was not yet due. The applicant had separately filed Civil Suit No. 37 of 2024 against the respondent for breach of contract arising from the same facts.

Issues

1. Whether the application raises sufficient grounds for the court to grant unconditional leave to the applicant to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 36 of 2024.
2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

• Unconditional leave granted for the applicant to file a written statement of defence.
• Costs of the application to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.98
• Judicature Act Cap. 16 s.33
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rule 36
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 Rule 4
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 Rule 2

Cases cited (4)

• Miter Investments v East African Portland Cement Co Ltd (HCMA No. 336 of 2012)
• Makula Interglobal Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
• Harold Wejuli & Another v Agrrey Bwire (HCMA Nos. 656 and 657 of 2019)
• Children of Africa v Sarick Construction Ltd (HCMA No. 134 of 2016)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

• Odoc Alfred v Okori Raymond (Land Appeal No. 047 of 2021)
• Odoc Alfred v Okori Raymond (Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2021)
• Kirunda v Narendra & Another (HCT-03-CV-MA 52 of 2024)

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