Kenneth Nyehoora Mugumya v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2606 of 2025)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Held that where a defendant is served with ordinary summons instead of the prescribed Form 4 summons under Order 36, and files an application for leave to appear and defend within the timeframe stated in the summons actually served, the application is not time-barred. Further held that where a loan agreement includes a protection cover to settle instalments upon loss of employment, and the bank presents no evidence of attempting to recover from that cover, triable issues exist as to the amount owed, placing the matter outside summary procedure. Unconditional leave to appear and defend granted.

Outcome

Applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit

Facts

The Applicant obtained a salary loan of USD 54,000 from the Respondent bank in July 2020, which he serviced to a balance of USD 14,939.96. He then applied for and was granted a loan top-up of USD 55,000.96, to be repaid from his salary. The loan was covered by a protection cover under credit life insurance providing up to six months' instalments in the event of loss of employment. The Applicant's employer, Last Mile Health, closed operations in Uganda, resulting in his loss of employment. The Respondent filed a summary suit claiming USD 55,644.56 without first resorting to the loan protection cover. The Respondent served ordinary summons giving 15 days to file a defence instead of the prescribed Form 4 summons under Order 36 giving 10 days to apply for leave to appear and defend. The Applicant filed this application within 15 days of service.

Issues

1. Whether the instant application is time-barred?
2. Whether the Applicant has raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 1173 of 2025?
3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

• The Applicant is hereby granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 1173 of 2025.
• The Applicant shall file and serve his Written Statement of Defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Ruling.
• The Respondent shall file its reply to the Written Statement of Defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the Written Statement of Defence.
• Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Judicature Act Cap. 16 s.37
• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 36 rule 3(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 36 rule 4
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 36 rule 10
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 rule 2
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)(e)

Cases cited (6)

• Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
• Jamil Ssenyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (High Court Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
• Bhaker Kotecha v Adam Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
• Geoffrey Gatete and 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 [1950] 17 EACA 92

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.

• Kayondo William v Estate of the Late Samuel Xentho Euclas Bengo (Administration Cause No. 0416 of 2018; Miscellaneous Application No. 2606 of 2025)

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