Wakilii

Jackson Jemba Kimbugwe v Batte Gerald (Miscellaneous Application No. 481 of 2018)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 268 · 2018 Application Dismissed; Summary Judgment Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit for recovery of money arising from a failed land sale transaction
Decision
Summary judgment entered for the respondent; applicant refused leave to 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

An applicant seeking leave to defend a summary suit must disclose by affidavit a bonafide triable issue of fact or law. Where the applicant admitted agreeing to refund money under a memorandum of understanding and failed to provide any plausible explanation or defence for non-payment, leave to defend is refused and summary judgment is entered for the plaintiff.

Outcome

Summary judgment entered for the respondent; applicant refused leave to defend

Facts

The respondent filed a summary suit for recovery of UGX 154,000,000/= arising from a failed land sale. The parties had entered into an agreement for the sale of land comprised in Busiro Block 222 plots 70 and 146. On 30 October 2015, the parties executed a memorandum of understanding whereby the applicant agreed to refund UGX 154,000,000/= to the respondent in two instalments: UGX 80,000,000/= within 14 days and the balance of UGX 74,000,000/= within two months, not later than 15 January 2016. The applicant failed to make the refund. The respondent demanded payment through advocates' letter dated 27 January 2016 but the applicant did not pay. The applicant sought leave to defend, arguing that the transaction failure was due to the respondent's conduct and that he had assisted the respondent. The applicant's initial application for leave was dismissed for want of prosecution and summary judgment was entered, but this order was later set aside and the application reinstated for hearing on merits.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant disclosed a bonafide triable issue of fact or law to warrant leave to appear and defend the summary suit.
  2. Whether the applicant raised reasonable grounds of defence to the respondent's claim for refund of money paid under a memorandum of understanding.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appear and defend dismissed with costs.
  • Summary judgment entered in favour of the respondent in the sum of UGX 154,000,000/=.
  • Interest awarded at court rate from the date of filing the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Granting Leave
Before leave to appear and defend a summary suit is granted, the defendant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bonafide triable issue of fact or law, and that there are reasonable grounds of defence to the claim.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Defend — Adequacy of Affidavit Evidence
Leave to appear and defend will not be given merely because there are several allegations of fact or law made in the defendant's affidavit; the allegations must be investigated to determine whether they disclose a triable issue.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Submissions from the Bar — Inadmissibility
Where counsel makes submissions containing factual allegations not pleaded in the applicant's affidavit in support, such submissions constitute evidence from the bar and will be disregarded by the court.
Contract Law — Memorandum of Understanding — Admission of Obligation — Effect on Defence
Where a defendant admits by affidavit having agreed to refund money under a memorandum of understanding and provides no evidence that the obligation was varied or revoked, the defendant has no plausible defence to a claim for the refund.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Corporate Insurance Co. Ltd v Nyali Beach Hotel [1995-1998] 1 EA 7
  • Sembule Investments Ltd v Uganda Baati Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 664 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jackson Jemba Kimbugwe v Batte Gerald (Miscellaneous Application No. 481 of 2018) [2018] UGHCCD 268 (13 July 2018)
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.