Wakilii

Kitatta & Another v Ssebiso (Miscellaneous Application 2716 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 186 · 2024 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 land sale transaction
Decision
Applicants granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit; matter to proceed to trial

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 granted unconditional leave to appear and defend, holding that the applicants raised triable issues of fact and law regarding whether the land purchase price was fully paid. The court rejected preliminary objections that the supporting affidavit was defective for lack of written authority from the second applicant and that it contained falsehoods, finding that both applicants participated in the same transaction and were entitled to rely on the same evidence. The matter was not suitable for summary procedure.

Outcome

Applicants granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit; matter to proceed to trial

Facts

On 13 November 2021, the applicants allegedly purchased land in Wakiso District from the respondent for UGX 90,000,000, which they claimed was fully paid. The respondent allegedly later demanded additional payment, stating the land had been undervalued. On 20 May 2022, an amended agreement was executed for UGX 205,000,000. The applicants claimed they paid a total of UGX 209,500,000, exceeding the amended purchase price. The respondent filed a summary suit claiming UGX 80,500,000 remained unpaid. The respondent disputed the existence of the first agreement dated 13 November 2021 and claimed only UGX 119,500,000 had been paid against the amended agreement price of UGX 205,000,000. The applicants sought leave to appear and defend.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants have raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 1066 of 2023?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?
  3. Whether the application is incompetent for lack of written authority from the 2nd Applicant for the 1st Applicant to swear the supporting affidavit?
  4. Whether the affidavit in support is riddled with falsehoods and deliberate misrepresentations?
  5. Whether the Respondent is entitled to amend the plaint?

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • The Applicants are hereby granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 1066 of 2023.
  • The Applicants are ordered to file their Written Statement of Defence within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Appear and Defend — Standard for Granting Leave
To obtain leave to appear and defend a summary suit under Order 36 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. The defence raised must not be a sham intended to delay recovery. Where there is a dispute as to material facts which ought to be tried, the court does not attempt to resolve those issues on the application but must grant leave to defend.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Co-Litigants — Authority to Swear on Behalf of Another
Where two or more persons are sued together and participate in the same transaction, an affidavit sworn by one litigant on his behalf and on behalf of another co-litigant is not fatally defective for lack of express written authorization where the co-litigants share the same facts and rely on the same evidence. What is required in affidavits is the knowledge or belief of the deponent, not formal authorization from other parties.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Allegations of Falsehood in Affidavit
Averments in an affidavit supporting an application for leave to defend cannot be struck out as falsehoods at the preliminary stage without further evidence. Where the disputed averments go to the root of the dispute and raise triable issues, it is in the interest of justice to allow the applicant an opportunity to present their defence at trial rather than determining the issue summarily.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Procedure
An application to amend pleadings under Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be made by formal chamber summons as required by Order 6 Rule 31, and cannot be made by prayer in written submissions filed in a different application.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (14)

  • Uganda Telecom Limited v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2017)
  • Bishop Patrick Baligasiima v Kiiza Daniel & 16 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1495 of 2016)
  • Scorpion Holding Ltd & 2 Others v Bank of Baroda (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 286 of 2013)
  • MHK Engineering Services (U) Ltd v Macdowell Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 825 of 2018)
  • Grace Namulondo & 3 Others v John Jones Serwanga Salongo & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 001 of 2019)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 22
  • Namutebi Matilda v Ssemanda Simon and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 430 of 2021)
  • Amtorg Trading Corporation Vs United States, 71 F.2d 524
  • Ready Agro Suppliers and Ors v Uganda Development Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 379 of 2005)
  • 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)
  • Kotecha v Adam Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd v Bombay Garage [1958] EA 741
  • Churanjila & Co. v A.H Adam (1950) 17 EACA 92

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kitatta & Another v Ssebiso (Miscellaneous Application 2716 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 186 (2 May 2024)
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.