Wakilii

Kato Contractors Ltd and Others v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 928 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 238 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend summary suit for recovery of liquidated debt
Decision
Application dismissed for want of prosecution; judgment entered for respondent in underlying summary 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

Where an applicant seeking leave to defend a summary suit fails to appear at the scheduled hearing despite proper notice, the court may exercise its discretion under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the application for want of prosecution. Where the underlying claim is for a liquidated sum under a written contract and properly brought by summary procedure, judgment may be entered for the plaintiff upon dismissal of the leave application.

Outcome

Application dismissed for want of prosecution; judgment entered for respondent in underlying summary suit

Facts

The respondent bank instituted Civil Suit 435 of 2025 by summary procedure against the applicants for recovery of UGX 1,853,513,767 arising from two invoice discounting facilities and a guarantee under a loan facility agreement. The first applicant defaulted on repayment. The applicants filed an application for unconditional leave to appear and defend the suit under Order 36 rule 3. The respondent requested the court to fix the application for hearing. The court scheduled the hearing for 1 July 2025, issued hearing notices via ECCMIS, and circulated the cause list. When the matter was called for hearing, the applicants did not appear. Only the respondent's counsel attended.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for leave to appear and defend should be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
  2. Whether judgment should be entered for the respondent in the underlying summary suit.

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. 0928 of 2025 dismissed in accordance with Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Judgment entered for the respondent/plaintiff for the decretal amount of UGX 1,853,513,767.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Failure to Prosecute Application for Leave to Defend
Where an applicant seeking leave to defend a summary suit fails to appear at a scheduled hearing despite proper notice and has taken no steps to advance the application, the court may exercise its discretion under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to dismiss the application forthwith for want of prosecution.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Duty to Prosecute with Diligence
Applicants bear a significant responsibility to prosecute their cases with due diligence and take steps towards timely resolution. Failure to perform acts necessary to the further progress of the suit, including attending hearings, justifies the court proceeding to decide the matter immediately under Order 17 rule 4.
Commercial Law — Commercial Court — Expeditious Resolution of Disputes
The expeditious resolution of business disputes serves the broader interest of commerce and public trust in the legal system. Public policy mandates that proceedings in the commercial court be conducted with utmost expediency to uphold principles of justice and efficiency.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Liquidated Demands Under Written Contract
Only claims involving liquidated demands based on a written contract or acknowledgment by the defendant or jointly by the parties may be brought by summary procedure under Order 36 rule 2(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (1)

  • Sterling Travel and Tour Services Ltd v Millennium Travel Tours Services Ltd (HCMA No. 116 of 2013)

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.

Kato Contractors Ltd and Others v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 928 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 238 (1 July 2025)
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.