Wakilii

Lease Ventures (U) Limited and Makweta Andrew Wilson v Christone Contractors Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2306 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 429 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appear and defend arising from summary suit for recovery of money
Decision
Application dismissed; judgment entered for respondent for UGX 197,000,000 with interest and costs

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 dismissed the application for leave to appear and defend, finding that the applicants failed to raise any triable issue of fact or law. The applicants acknowledged receiving payment for a motor vehicle they failed to deliver, voluntarily executed a refund agreement, and made partial payments under that agreement. Their defence was not bona fide. Judgment was entered for the respondent for UGX 197,000,000 with interest at 20% per annum from the date of default and costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed; judgment entered for respondent for UGX 197,000,000 with interest and costs

Facts

The respondent paid UGX 245,000,000 to the first applicant for the supply of a brand new Toyota Hilux Double Cabin Pick-up under a vehicle sales contract dated 5 March 2024. The applicants failed to deliver the motor vehicle. On 25 February 2025, the second applicant individually and voluntarily executed a refund agreement accepting to repay UGX 245,000,000 by the end of April 2025. By 7 May 2025, the applicants had refunded only UGX 28,000,000. The respondent instituted Civil Suit No. 982 of 2025 seeking recovery of UGX 217,000,000. After the suit was filed, the applicants paid a further UGX 20,000,000 on 15 September 2025, leaving an outstanding balance of UGX 197,000,000. The applicants applied for leave to appear and defend, contending that they had delivered the vehicle but the respondent refused to acknowledge receipt, and that the refund agreement was executed under pressure.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants have raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 982 of 2025.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appear and defend dismissed.
  • Judgment entered for the Respondent/Plaintiff under Order 36 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • The Applicants/Defendants shall pay the Respondent/Plaintiff UGX 197,000,000 being the current outstanding balance due and owing.
  • Interest awarded on the sum at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of default until payment in full.
  • Costs of the application and the suit awarded to the Respondent/Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Granting Leave
For leave to appear and defend under Order 36 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules to be granted, an applicant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law. A triable issue is one capable of being resolved through a legal trial, arising when a material proposition of law or fact is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. The defence raised must not be a sham or be averred in a manner that appears needlessly bald, vague or sketchy.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Grounds for Granting Leave to Defend
Where a suit is brought under summary procedure on a specially endorsed plaint, the defendant should be granted leave to appear and defend if he or she can show a good defence on merit, or that a difficult point of law is involved, or a dispute as to the facts which ought to be tried, or a real dispute as to the amount claimed which requires taking an account to determine, or any other circumstances showing reasonable grounds of a bona fide defence. 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.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Partial Performance of Refund Agreement — Effect on Leave Application
Where an applicant acknowledges having received money, voluntarily executes a refund agreement, and makes partial payments under that agreement including after the institution of the suit, the applicant has not raised any triable issue of fact or law to warrant the granting of leave to appear and defend. An argument that payments were made under unreasonable pressure is undermined by subsequent voluntary payments after the suit was filed.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Purpose and Application
Summary procedure is resorted to in clear and straightforward cases where the demand is liquidated and there are no issues for determination by the court except for the grant of the claim. Summary procedure provides a quick way for the plaintiff who demands a liquidated sum to obtain judgment where there is no evident defence.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (8)

  • 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
  • Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd v Bombay Garage Ltd [1958] EA 741
  • Post Bank (U) Limited v Abdu Ssozi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2015)
  • Ndibazza Naima v Acacia Finance Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1144 of 2014)
  • Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation (U) Ltd and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lease Ventures (U) Limited and Makweta Andrew Wilson v Christone Contractors Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2306 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 429 (24 November 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.