Wakilii

Kirungi v Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application 38 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 101 · 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 loan recovery, arising from Civil Suit No. 070 of 2022
Decision
Application dismissed — applicant denied leave to defend 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

Held that a mortgagee under the Mortgage Act 2009 has liberty to choose which remedy to pursue for loan recovery, including commencing court action for money secured by mortgage without first realising the security. The court may extend time for filing submissions even where no application is made, and counsel's omission should not prejudice the litigant. An applicant seeking leave to defend must adduce evidence showing a plausible defence and bonafide triable issues. Mere allegations without supporting evidence are insufficient. Application dismissed where applicant failed to provide reasonable grounds of defence.

Outcome

Application dismissed — applicant denied leave to defend summary suit

Facts

The respondent bank filed a summary suit seeking recovery of UGX 305,758,337 being outstanding loan balance advanced to the applicant. The loan of UGX 245,000,000 was secured by mortgage over the applicant's properties in Buyaga Block 48 Plot 126 and Buyaga Block 49 Plot 11, Kyamajaka, Kibaale. The applicant sought unconditional leave to defend, alleging that he had serviced the loan, that some deposits were not credited to his account, that the bank charged exorbitant interest above the apex lending rate, that the bank refused his request for a forensic audit, that COVID-19 pandemic affected his business, and that as an illiterate person he was defrauded into executing a mortgage deed not translated to him. The respondent opposed the application, asserting that all payments were properly credited and that the applicant remained indebted to the stated amount.

Issues

  1. Whether the main suit for loan recovery is premature given that the mortgagee has not first realised the mortgaged securities.
  2. Whether the applicant's submissions filed outside the prescribed time should be struck off record.
  3. Whether the applicant has reasonable grounds of defence and bonafide triable issues to warrant grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend the summary suit.

Orders

  • Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend dismissed.
  • Time extended for filing of applicant's submissions.
  • Applicant's preliminary objection that the main suit is premature dismissed.
  • Respondent's preliminary objection on late filing of submissions dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Banking & Finance — Mortgage Remedies — Mortgagee's Choice of Remedies under Mortgage Act 2009
Under section 21(1) of the Mortgage Act 2009, a mortgagee has liberty to choose which remedy to pursue for recovery of outstanding sums, including instituting court action for money secured by mortgage without first realising the mortgaged security, where the mortgage deed provides that upon default the money secured becomes payable in full or where the mortgagee is deprived of security through the mortgagor's wrongful act or default.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Court's Discretion under O.51 r.6 CPR
Under Order 51 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has power to enlarge time for doing any act even after expiration of the limited time and even where no application for extension is made. An omission or mistake by counsel ought not to be visited upon the litigant. Where submissions are filed late but are already on record and the other party has had opportunity to respond, the court may in exercise of its discretion extend time for filing and validate the late submissions in the interests of substantive justice.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Test for Grant of Leave to Defend
Before leave to appear and defend a summary suit is granted, the applicant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bonafide triable issue of fact or law and reasonable grounds of defence to the claim. The applicant is not bound to show a good defence on the merits but must satisfy the court that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried. The court shall not enter upon the trial of the issues at this interlocutory stage.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Burden of Adducing Evidence in Support of Defence
It is not sufficient for an applicant seeking leave to defend to merely plead or state that he has a plausible defence. The applicant must adduce and show evidence in his affidavit leading to that plausible defence. Bare allegations without supporting documentary evidence or specifications are insufficient to establish bonafide triable issues warranting leave to defend.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (4)

  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Monica D/o Dickson v Hussein (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2019)
  • Guliano Gariggio v Claudio Casadio (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 01 of 2013)
  • Elizabeth Kobusingye v Annet Zimbiha (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 245 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kirungi v Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application 38 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 101 (24 January 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.