Wakilii

Lukwago Jamilu v Sadrudin Tadha (Civil Appeal 14 of 2021)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 357 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed — Conditional Leave 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 alleged breach of tenancy agreement
Decision
Conditional leave granted to applicant to file defence upon deposit of UGX 30,000,000 in court; respondent entitled to judgment in default if condition not met

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 High Court granted conditional leave to the applicant to appear and defend the summary suit. The court held that while the applicant raised issues that required investigation, the proposed defence appeared doubtful as to good faith. The court rejected preliminary objections regarding the applicant's alleged illiteracy and defective annextures, finding these were either questions of fact requiring evidence or procedural irregularities curable under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution. Leave was granted on condition that the applicant deposit UGX 30,000,000 in court within 30 days.

Outcome

Conditional leave granted to applicant to file defence upon deposit of UGX 30,000,000 in court; respondent entitled to judgment in default if condition not met

Facts

The respondent filed a summary suit seeking recovery of UGX 79,860,000 as rent arrears under a tenancy agreement dated 22 December 2021, alleging the applicant failed to pay monthly rent of UGX 3,630,000 since April 2023. The applicant sought unconditional leave to defend, contending the tenancy agreement was a forgery, that he had been occupying the premises since 2017 and making payments directly to the landlord through bank account No. 7070389389, and that payments were made to one Karuhanga Herbert, an alleged authorized agent of the respondent. The respondent denied the applicant's claims, asserting that Karuhanga Herbert had no authority to receive payments and that the applicant's evidence was forged. The applicant raised preliminary objections regarding his alleged illiteracy and defective annextures to the respondent's affidavit.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises triable issues of law or fact to warrant grant of leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 30 of 2025.
  2. Whether the tenancy agreement dated 22 December 2021 is a forgery and inadmissible under the Illiterates Protection Act.
  3. Whether exhibits attached to the affidavit in reply were properly sealed and signed by the commissioner for oaths.

Orders

  • The Applicant is granted conditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 30/2025.
  • The Applicant shall deposit UGX 30,000,000 in court within thirty (30) days of this order.
  • The Applicant is to file his defence within ten (10) days from making the deposit.
  • The Respondent shall file a reply to the written statement of defence within 10 days from filing of the defence.
  • The costs of this application shall be in the cause if defence is filed, but upon default will be borne by the Applicant.
  • The Respondent will be entitled to judgment in default upon the Applicant's failure to meet the condition attached to the leave granted to him to file a defence.

Rules and key headnotes

Summary Suits — Leave to Appear and Defend — Conditions for Grant
An application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit may be granted where the applicant shows a good defence on the merits, a difficult point of law, a genuine dispute requiring trial, or any other circumstances showing reasonable grounds for a bona fide defence. Where the court is in doubt whether the proposed defence is being made in good faith, the court may order the defendant to deposit money in court before leave is granted.
Summary Suits — Triable Issues — Distinction from Mere Denial
Before leave to appear and defend is granted, the defendant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law. The defence must be stated with sufficient particularity to appear genuine. General or vague statements denying liability will not suffice. The applicant raising a triable issue must be distinguished from mere denial, and the defence raised must not be a sham defence intended to delay the plaintiff from recovering money due.
Preliminary Objections — Requirements — Pure Points of Law
A preliminary objection raises a pure point of law which is usually on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It is based on a commonly accepted set of facts as pleaded by both parties. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion. Whether a party is an illiterate person is a question of fact that requires evidence and cannot be determined as a pure point of law by way of preliminary objection.
Affidavits — Defective Annextures — Effect on Admissibility
The failure of a commissioner for oaths to seal and identify annextures to an affidavit does not ipso facto make the affidavit itself fatally defective and inadmissible. Such failure is a procedural irregularity curable under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, which provides that substantive justice shall be administered without undue regard to technicalities. A defective annexture cannot lead to striking out a duly filed affidavit.
Summary Suits — Conditional Leave — Deposit of Money in Court
Pursuant to Order 36 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, leave to appear and defend a summary suit may be given unconditionally or subject to such terms as to the payment of money in court, giving security, or time or mode of trial or otherwise, as the court may think fit. Where the proposed defence is doubtful as to good faith, the court may grant conditional leave by ordering the applicant to deposit money in court before leave is granted.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (14)

  • Kasaala Growers Co-operative Society v Kakooza Jonathan & Anor (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2010)
  • Samwiri Massa V Rose Achen [1928] HCB 242
  • Charles Serunjogi v Tony Nkuubi (High Court Civil Suit No. 71 of 2019)
  • Yasa Faraiallah v Obur Ronald & Ors (High Court Civil Appeal No. 81 of 2016)
  • Rohi Investment Limited v Fenghua Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 2021)
  • Col. Dr. Besigye Kiiza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta & Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Busonya Jamada & 2 Ors v Daudi Giruli (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2017)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacture Co. V West End Distributors [1969] EA 696
  • N.A.S Airnot Services V Attorney General [1989] EA 11
  • Rev George Lubega & Anor v Luwero Town Council & Anor (High Court Civil Suit No. 190 of 2009)
  • Africa One Logistics Ltd v Kazi Food Logistics (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 564 of 2018)
  • Fina Bank Vs Adum Muhammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • MMK Engineering v Mantrust Uganda Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1331 of 2021)
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd Vs Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 6

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lukwago Jamilu v Sadrudin Tadha (Civil Appeal 14 of 2021) [2026] UGHC 357 (16 March 2026)
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.