Kobil Uganda Ltd v Turyatemba (Miscellaneous Application No. 370 of 2015)
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.
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 the applicant leave to appear and defend a summary suit for recovery of unpaid licence fees. The court sustained the applicant's preliminary objection to the affidavit in reply which had been filed late without seeking extension of time. The court rejected the respondent's preliminary objection that the application itself was filed late, finding that when accounting for a public holiday the application was filed within the statutory ten-day period. The court held that the applicant raised triable issues regarding compliance with the dealership agreement and the validity of credit notes and emails, warranting full trial.
Outcome
Leave to appear and defend granted; applicant directed to file defence within ten days
Facts
The respondent filed a summary suit claiming UGX 71,689,216.80 as unpaid licence fees under a dealership contract whereby the respondent operated the applicant's fuel station at Kobil Highway Kabale. The respondent alleged losses caused by transporters and relied on credit notes and emails as evidence of the applicant's admission of debt. The applicant denied liability, disputed the authenticity of the emails, and asserted that it had fulfilled all terms of the dealership agreement. The applicant also stated that calibration tests showed the tanks were intact and disputed the alleged losses. The applicant sought leave to appear and defend. Both parties raised preliminary objections: the applicant objected to the late filing of the respondent's affidavit in reply, while the respondent objected that the application for leave was filed late. Service of summons occurred on 6 May 2015 and the application was filed on 18 May 2015.
Issues
- Whether the applicant's application for leave to appear and defend was competent
- Whether the affidavit in reply was filed and served out of time
- Whether the application for leave to appear and defend was filed within the statutory time limit
- Whether the applicant demonstrated triable issues sufficient to warrant leave to appear and defend the summary suit
Orders
- Application granted.
- Applicant's preliminary objection sustained — affidavit in reply struck out for late filing without leave.
- Respondent's preliminary objection dismissed — application was filed in time.
- Applicant to file defence to the suit within ten days.
- Costs to be in the cause.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
Cases cited (8)
- Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
- Springwood Capital Partners Ltd v Twed Consulting Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 746 of 2014)
- Rajiv Kumar v Patel (Miscellaneous Application No. 815 of 2014)
- Samwiri Massa v Rose Achen (1978) HCB 279
- Pinnacle Projects Ltd v Business in Motion Consultants Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 362 of 2010)
- Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
- Sam Engola v ES-KO International INC. (Miscellaneous Application No. 231 of 2005)
- Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates v UBD (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1997)
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.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.