Mary Ankwatsa v Ade Musana (Civil Appeal No. 104 of 2013)

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against partial summary judgment. It held the appellant had not shown good cause or a triable defence to the respondent's specific claim of UGX 91,000,000, since her denial of having refunded UGX 71,000,000 was evasive and unsupported by any evidence, and the claimed money was not company share capital. The undertaking the appellant signed promising to refund money already received was a valid, enforceable contract under section 20(1)(b) of the Contracts Act 2010, being a promise to compensate a person who had already done something for the promisor, and did not fail for want of consideration. The lower court's judgment and orders were upheld.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; trial court judgment for UGX 91,000,000 upheld

Facts

The respondent instituted a summary suit against the appellant in the High Court (Commercial Division) for recovery of UGX 112,240,000 and costs. The appellant applied for unconditional leave to appear and defend. She admitted receiving UGX 91,000,000 from the respondent and admitted signing an undertaking to refund that amount in instalments, but claimed she had already refunded UGX 71,000,000 and that the money was the respondent's contribution to the share capital of Lasting Solutions Consult Ltd, a company jointly owned by the parties. The company's memorandum recorded share capital of only UGX 2,000,000, with no evidence of any increase. The appellant produced no documents proving the alleged refund. The trial Judge entered judgment for UGX 91,000,000 in favour of the respondent, finding no triable defence to that sum, but allowed the appellant to file a defence to the residue of UGX 21,240,000. The appellant appealed against the judgment on the UGX 91,000,000.

Issues

1. Whether the trial Judge erred in entering summary judgment for the Respondent on allegedly disputed facts.
2. Whether the trial Judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence on record.
3. Whether the undertaking to refund the money was a legally enforceable contract given the alleged absence of consideration.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed with costs here and in the lower Court.
• The judgment and orders of the trial court are upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 36 rule 3(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 36 rule 4
• Contracts Act 2010 s.10(1)
• Contracts Act 2010 s.20(1)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 rule 30(1)(a)

Cases cited (11)

• Pandya v. R [1957] EA 336
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation v. Daber Enterprises Ltd (2000) 1 E.A. 75
• Gatete Geoffrey & Another v William Kyobe (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
• Kotecha v. Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
• Gatete Geoffrey & Another v William Kyobe (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
• Abdallah Nabulere & Another v. Uganda (1979) HCB 77
• Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v. Selfridge and Company Limited (1915) A.C 847
• Macfay v. United Africa Ltd (1961) 3 ALL ER 1169
• Souza Figuerido & Co. Ltd v. Moorings Hotel Ltd (1959) E.A. 425

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.

• Nyandusi v Oyuko (Civil Application Number 0032 of 2018)

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