Management Committee, St. Savio Junior School - Kisubi v Mugerwa Commercial Agency Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No 183 of 2004) (Miscellaneous Application No 183 of 2004)

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.

Holding

Held that the suit raised complex issues requiring determination of whether a 1997 personal contract with the Managing Director affected a 2000 contract allegedly made with the company, involving questions of separate legal personality and privity. Such matters could not be summarily determined under Order 33 and would require days of argument. The application for leave to defend was allowed with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Matter to proceed to full trial with defendant having leave to defend

Facts

The plaintiff company sued under Order 33 to recover UGX 5,348,000 for T-shirts allegedly supplied in April 2000 under an oral contract. The plaintiff's Managing Director swore that 897 T-shirts and additional teacher shirts were delivered on 12 and 15 April 2000, of which the defendant paid only UGX 250,000. The defendant applied for leave to defend, contending the suit was improperly brought under Order 33. The defendant's headmaster swore that on 23 May 1997, the Managing Director personally (not the company) entered an agency agreement whereby the school would sell uniforms on commission and remit proceeds, with ownership remaining in the supplier. The defendant claimed 887 uniforms were supplied under that agreement, none were sold, and the school invited the plaintiff to collect them. At the hearing, plaintiff's counsel argued the 1997 contract was personal to the Managing Director while the 2000 contract was with the company, and that the defendant had not disclosed a defence against the company's claim.

Issues

1. Whether the suit was properly instituted under Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. Whether the applicant/defendant had disclosed a triable defence warranting leave to defend.
3. Whether the defence raised was a sham given alleged contradictions between the 1997 personal contract and the 2000 company contract.

Orders

• Application for leave to defend allowed.
• No order as to costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Civil Procedure Rules O.33
• Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.28
• Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.11(a)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.11(e)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.27
• Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.29
• Civil Procedure Rules O.17 r.3(1)

Cases cited (1)

• Home & Overseas Insurance Co. Ltd v Mentor Insurance Co. (UK) Ltd [1989] 3 All ER 74

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