Wakilii

Jungo John and Another v C & M Millers & Suppliers Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA-0787-2012)

High Court · [2013] UGHC 256 · 2013 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appear and defend in a summary suit
Decision
Applicants granted leave to appear and defend; matter to proceed to full hearing on the merits

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

The court granted the applicants unconditional leave to appear and defend the summary suit. The court found triable issues existed, including whether the claimed USD 34,000 arose from a maize supply contract or a loan agreement, and whether the amount owed was USD 24,000 or USD 34,000. The applicants satisfied the requirement to show bonafide triable issues of fact or law without needing to demonstrate a good defence on the merits.

Outcome

Applicants granted leave to appear and defend; matter to proceed to full hearing on the merits

Facts

The respondent filed a summary suit claiming USD 34,000 from the applicants as money borrowed. The applicants applied for leave to appear and defend. The first applicant averred that he and the second applicant (a company of which he was a director) entered into a contract on 28 November 2008 to supply 50,000 bags of white maize for USD 2,000,000, to be paid via letters of credit through KCB Bank Juba. The respondent was to pay quarterly instalments of USD 24,000 for quarterly supplies of 12,500 bags. The respondent demanded a guarantee; the applicants provided KCB Bank cheque no. 000013. The applicants supplied only 4,600 bags of the 50,000 contracted. The applicants denied borrowing money and asserted the cheque was a guarantee for the letter of credit. The respondent contended the maize contract was concluded and fully paid in March 2009, and that USD 24,000 was loaned to the applicants with a cheque issued as receipt (which bounced), plus USD 10,000 sent by telegraphic transfer on 20 March 2009, totalling USD 34,000.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants demonstrated the existence of triable issues warranting leave to appear and defend the summary suit.
  2. Whether the sum of USD 34,000 claimed arose from a contract for the supply of maize or from a loan agreement.
  3. Whether the total amount owed was USD 24,000 or USD 34,000.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicants granted unconditional leave to appear and defend.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Grant
An application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit is granted when the defendant demonstrates by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bonafide triable issue of fact or law; the defendant need not show a good defence on the merits but must satisfy the court that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Appear and Defend — Court's Duty
The court must study the defence raised and ascertain whether it raises a real issue and not a sham one, in the sense that if the facts alleged by the defence were established there would be a plausible defence; the court should not enter upon the trial of the issues disclosed at the interlocutory stage.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Triable Issues — Existence of Dispute as to Nature of Transaction
Where a plaintiff claims money as a loan but the defendant contends the sum arose from a contract of sale and was a guarantee rather than a debt, and where the amount claimed is itself in dispute, triable issues exist warranting leave to appear and defend.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Maluku, Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda (1983) HCB

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jungo John and Another v C & M Millers & Suppliers Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA-0787-2012) [2013] UGHC 256 (29 April 2013)
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.