Wakilii

Kaweesi v Ali Motors (U) Ltd [2025] UGCOMMC 53

High Court · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit arising from a sale of goods dispute
Decision
Application granted; default judgment set aside; applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the summary suit 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 court held that where an application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit is filed two days late but raises triable issues of fact and law regarding misrepresentation, fitness for purpose of goods sold, and the state of the goods at purchase, the interests of justice require setting aside the default judgment and granting leave to defend. The applicant established a bona fide triable issue sufficient to remove the matter from summary procedure under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Application granted; default judgment set aside; applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the summary suit with costs to the respondent

Facts

On 2 September 2023, the respondent sold an excavator to the applicant for UGX 300,000,000, with a down payment of UGX 60,000,000 and the balance of UGX 240,000,000 payable in monthly instalments of UGX 20,000,000 over twelve months. The applicant had acquired a business loan from Post Bank using his property as security and explained to the respondent that the excavator was for a business he intended to start. The applicant claims the respondent misrepresented that the excavator was in good working condition and fit for purpose, but the machine has had continuous mechanical problems since purchase and has never worked properly. The applicant says he has spent approximately UGX 79,050,000 on spare parts and repairs and communicated these issues to the respondent from 18 December 2023 to 24 March 2024 without receiving a response. The applicant made no payments on the balance. The respondent instituted a summary suit seeking to recover the outstanding UGX 240,000,000. The applicant was served with summons on 3 October 2024 and filed this application for leave to appear and defend on 16 October 2024, two days after the ten-day deadline. A default judgment was entered on 21 October 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 1156 of 2024?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The application is granted.
  • The Applicant is granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 1156 of 2024.
  • The default judgment entered on 21st October 2024 is set aside.
  • The Applicant is ordered to file his Written Statement of Defence within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • Costs of this application are awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Suit Procedure — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Grant of Leave
To obtain leave to appear and defend a summary suit under Order 36 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an applicant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law. A triable issue is one capable of being resolved through a legal trial, arising when a material proposition of law or fact is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suit Procedure — Scope and Limitations of Summary Procedure
Summary procedure under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules is resorted to only in clear and straightforward cases where the demand is liquidated and there are no issues for determination by the Court except for the grant of the claim. Where triable issues of law and fact are raised regarding the circumstances of an agreement, the state of goods sold, or alleged misrepresentation, the matter falls outside the ambit of summary procedure and the defendant must be granted leave to defend.
Civil Procedure — Time Limits — Filing Out of Time — Interests of Justice
Where an application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit is filed only two days late and raises triable issues requiring determination on the merits, the Court may invoke Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to validate the application and set aside the default judgment in the interests of administering substantive justice and avoiding multiplicity of suits, with the prejudice to the respondent atoned for by an award of costs.
Civil Procedure — Defence — Requirements for a Stateable Defence
A defendant who has a stateable and arguable defence must be allowed to state it and argue it before the Court. All the defendant has to show is that there is a definite triable issue of fact or law. The defence should not be averred in a manner that appears to be needlessly bald, vague or sketchy.
Contract Law — Sale of Goods — Misrepresentation — Fitness for Purpose — Triable Issue
Where a defendant in a suit for recovery of purchase price raises allegations of misrepresentation as to the fitness for purpose of goods sold, communicates defects to the seller, and produces evidence of repairs and breakdowns, these raise triable issues of law and fact requiring investigation of the circumstances under which the goods were bought, the condition at the time of purchase, representations made, and whether the goods were fit for purpose at the time of purchase.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (10)

  • Uganda Telecom Limited v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2017)
  • Patrick Katto v Dirk Ten Brink (High Court Misc. Application No. 791 of 2023)
  • Miter Investments Limited v East African Portland and Cement Company Limited (Misc. Application No. 534 of 2012)
  • M.M.K Engineering v Man Trust Uganda Ltd (Misc. Application No. 128 of 2012)
  • Jamil Ssenyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (High Court Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
  • Kotecha v Adam Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Geoffrey Gatete & Another v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
  • Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd v Bombay Garage [1958] EA 741
  • Churanjila & Co. v A.H Adam (1) (1950) 17 EACA 92
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kaweesi v Ali Motors (U) Ltd 2025 UGCommC 53 (17 February 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.