Wakilii

Kasulu Paul v Nsiika Financial Services Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 2348 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 283 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out written statement of defence arising from civil suit for breach of contract
Decision
Application to strike out defence dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 High Court dismissed an application to strike out a written statement of defence. The applicant alleged the defence failed to specifically traverse material averments in the plaint, particularly a refund claim of UGX 53,477,810. The court held that a defendant is only required to respond to main allegations forming the foundation of the suit, not every fact pleaded. The court found the respondent had specifically traversed the main allegations and the defence was neither a general denial nor evasive.

Outcome

Application to strike out defence dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant obtained a loan of UGX 30,000,000 from the respondent in May 2023, repayable within 24 months at 72% annual interest. Following job loss, the applicant requested loan restructuring. The applicant alleged the respondent charged penalties prematurely, imposed exorbitant interest, refused to clarify computation contradictions between account statements and internal ledger, and disregarded payments, resulting in loss of collateral. The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 999 of 2025 seeking a refund of UGX 53,477,810, rescission of contract, and damages. The respondent filed a written statement of defence disputing the claims. The applicant then brought this application seeking to strike out the defence for allegedly failing to specifically traverse material averments, particularly the refund claim and annexures.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's written statement of defence in Civil Suit No. 999 of 2025 should be struck out?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Striking Out Defence — Standard for Specific Traverse
A defendant is required to respond specifically to the main allegations which form the foundation of the suit, but is not obligated to respond to every fact pleaded by the plaintiff.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Striking Out Defence — Test for General Denial
Under Order 6 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, it is not sufficient for a defendant to deny generally the grounds alleged in the statement of claim; each party must deal specifically with each allegation of fact which they do not admit, except damages.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Striking Out Defence — Evasive Denials
Under Order 6 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, when a party denies an allegation of fact, they must not do so evasively but must answer the point of substance; if it is alleged that a party received a certain sum, it is not sufficient to deny receiving that particular amount without denying receipt of that sum or any part of it, or setting out how much was received.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Striking Out Defence — Grounds for Exercise of Power
A court will strike out a written statement of defence where it consists of a bare denial or is incoherent, or where the facts alleged would not, even if true, amount in law to a defence to the claim; the defendant must be shown to have no real prospect of successfully defending the claim or issue.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (2)

  • Balinda Prasad Vs United Bank of India Limited & Others AIR 1962 Pat 153
  • Byaruhanga Africano v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited (HCMA No. 67 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasulu Paul v Nsiika Financial Services Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 2348 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 283 (8 June 2026)
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.