Wakilii

Kayonza Growers Tea Factory Limited v Tibenderana Gideon (Miscellaneous Application No. 0053 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1497 · 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 Civil Suit No. 0024 of 2024
Decision
Applicant granted unconditional leave to defend the summary suit

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 granted the Applicant unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 24 of 2024. The court held that the Applicant's affidavit disclosed bona fide triable issues of both law and fact, including the enforceability of an arbitration clause in the parties' agreement, the quantum of the debt claimed, and whether the claim qualified as a liquidated demand suitable for summary procedure. The court applied the principle from Maluku Interglobal that where there is a reasonable ground of defence, a plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment, and the defendant should be given an opportunity to defend at trial.

Outcome

Applicant granted unconditional leave to defend the summary suit

Facts

The Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 24 of 2024 as a summary suit seeking recovery of UGX 219,596,900 from the Applicant, a tea factory, for green leaf supplied under a Green Leaf Agreement executed on 10 October 2023. The Respondent claimed the debt was liquidated and computed from pay slips issued by the Applicant. The Applicant acknowledged making some payments (UGX 5,000,000 in November 2023, UGX 2,000,000 in December 2023, and UGX 10,000,000 in February 2024) but disputed the quantum claimed. The Applicant contended that Clause 11 of the agreement required disputes to be resolved through arbitration, that the Respondent's tea plantation was only 0.5 hectares and could not have supplied sufficient green leaf to justify the claimed sum, and that the pay slips were unverified and bore no stamp or signature of authorized officials. The Applicant applied for unconditional leave to appear and defend, arguing it had a bona fide defence raising triable issues of law and fact.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 24 of 2024.
  2. Whether the arbitration clause in the Green Leaf Agreement precludes the court's jurisdiction over the dispute.
  3. Whether the Respondent's claim constitutes a liquidated demand suitable for summary procedure.
  4. Whether the Applicant has disclosed bona fide triable issues of fact or law warranting a defence at trial.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appear and defend is granted.
  • The Applicant is given unconditional leave to file a defence and defend Civil Suit No. 24 of 2024.
  • The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Granting Leave
Before leave to appear and defend is granted in a summary suit, the defendant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law. The defendant is not bound to show a good defence on the merits but should satisfy the court that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried. The court should not attempt to resolve that issue at the leave stage.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Unconditional Leave — When Granted
A defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend where the affidavit discloses a reasonable ground of defence, even if not a possibly good defence. If the judge considers that there is any reasonable ground of defence to the claim, the plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment.
Arbitration & ADR — Arbitration Clause — Effect on Court Jurisdiction — Triable Issue
Where parties have executed an agreement containing an arbitration clause requiring disputes to be resolved through arbitration, and one party contends that litigation contravenes the agreement while the other maintains there is no dispute to arbitrate, the enforceability and effect of the arbitration clause vis-à-vis the court's jurisdiction is a pertinent legal issue that warrants investigation at trial and cannot be conclusively determined at the preliminary stage of an application for leave to defend.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Liquidated Demand — Disputed Quantum
A claim cannot be treated as a liquidated demand suitable for summary procedure where the defendant challenges the accuracy of the figures relied upon and the exact amount due is contested. A liquidated demand is a specific sum of money that is agreed or can be precisely determined by calculation or reference to certain documents without requiring further evidence. Where the quantum requires scrutiny of transactions and examination of evidence, whether the claim meets the definition of a liquidated demand is a triable issue of law and fact.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (3)

  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Michalec Engineering & Manufacturing v Bank of Egypt AIR 1977 SC 577
  • Adina Zola & Another v Ralli Brothers Ltd & Another (Court of Appeal No. 4 of 1969)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kayonza Growers Tea Factory Limited v Tibenderana Gideon (Miscellaneous Application No. 0053 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 1497 (28 October 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.