Wakilii

Mako Warehouse v Total Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1031 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 16 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend arising from summary suit for debt recovery
Decision
Applicant granted unconditional leave to defend the main suit

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 the applicant established triable issues warranting unconditional leave to defend a summary suit for debt. The court found that questions concerning jurisdiction (based on an alleged arbitration clause), whether sums arose after contract termination, and whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action were triable issues requiring full trial. The absence of the underlying contract did not bar leave where triable issues existed. Unconditional leave granted; conditional leave refused despite respondent's evidence of acknowledgment of debt.

Outcome

Applicant granted unconditional leave to defend the main suit

Facts

Mako Warehouse and Total Uganda entered into a lubricants distributorship agreement in 2014 for the Northern region. Total supplied lubricants, sometimes on credit. Total sued Mako in Civil Suit No. 116 of 2021 by summary procedure claiming UGX 66,416,298 as balance for breach of contract, arising from unpaid invoices dated March and July 2018. Mako claimed it was unaware of outstanding invoices, alleged Total breached by stopping supply in March 2018 and appointing another distributor without notice, and asserted it was stuck with consignment worth UGX 28,632,247. Total claimed Mako failed to pay for three consignments, made partial payment of UGX 6,474,180 in July 2018, acknowledged debt by letter proposing payment plan, but never paid. Mako sought unconditional leave to defend, arguing triable issues including arbitration clause, lack of proper service, and no cause of action. Total opposed, seeking conditional leave subject to deposit if any leave granted.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted unconditional leave to file a defense in Civil Suit No. 116 of 2021.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Applicant is hereby granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 116 of 2021.
  • The Applicant is hereby ordered to file its defense in Civil Suit No. 116 of 2021 within fourteen days from date of this ruling.
  • Costs shall abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Summary Procedure — Leave to Defend — Test for Unconditional Leave
Unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit must be granted where the defendant shows a triable issue or question of fact or law that ought to be determined at trial. The defendant need not show a good defense on the merits but must satisfy the court that there is a bona fide triable issue.
Summary Procedure — Jurisdictional Challenge as Triable Issue
A defendant's assertion that an arbitration clause in the parties' contract ousts the court's jurisdiction constitutes a triable issue sufficient to warrant grant of unconditional leave to defend, even where the defendant fails to attach the contract to the application.
Summary Procedure — Timing of Debt — Contract Termination
Whether sums claimed in a summary suit arose after the contract between the parties had been terminated is a triable issue that, depending on its resolution, could impact the plaintiff's claim and warrants grant of leave to defend.
Summary Procedure — Conditional vs. Unconditional Leave — Acknowledgment of Debt
Where a defendant's letter appears to acknowledge debt and propose a payment plan, but the contents require witness testimony for clarification, the court cannot make conclusions on the letter at the leave stage to justify conditional leave. Triable issues warrant unconditional leave even where some evidence suggests acknowledgment of liability.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • MMK Engineering v Mantrust Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 128 of 2021)
  • Bhaker Kotecha v Adum Muhammed [2002] 1 EA
  • Maluku Inter Global Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Geoffrey Gatete & Another v William Kyobe (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)

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

↓ Download PDF

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

Mako Warehouse v Total Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1031 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 16 (12 April 2022)
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.