Wakilii

Masia Flavia v Avako Winnie (Miscellaneous Application 120 of 2023)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 842 · 2026 Application Dismissed 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 for recovery of loan monies
Decision
Application dismissed; judgment entered for the Respondent for UGX 32,000,000 plus 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 defend a summary suit for recovery of a loan. The applicant admitted borrowing UGX 35,000,000 but failed to provide evidence of alleged partial repayment of UGX 17,000,000. The court held that mere assertion of payment without documentary proof does not raise a triable issue. Judgment was entered for the respondent for UGX 32,000,000, calculated as the principal plus two months' interest at 20% per month as stipulated in the loan agreement, less the applicant's claimed but unproven payments.

Outcome

Application dismissed; judgment entered for the Respondent for UGX 32,000,000 plus costs

Facts

On 3 November 2020, the applicant Masia Flavia borrowed UGX 35,000,000 from the respondent Avako Winnie at a monthly interest rate of 20%. The loan agreement stipulated that interest would be charged for two months upon default, after which the full principal was due. The respondent filed a summary suit (Civil Suit No. 0030 of 2023) to recover the loan. The applicant applied for leave to defend, claiming she had made partial payments totalling UGX 17,000,000 and had a plausible defence. The respondent opposed, asserting the applicant had failed to repay despite demand notices and provided no evidence of the alleged payments. The applicant admitted the loan but promised to produce payment evidence at trial if granted leave to defend.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses any triable issues that justify the grant of leave to appear and defend the summary suit.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application for leave to appear and defend dismissed.
  • Judgment entered in Civil Suit No. 0030 of 2023 in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff.
  • The Applicant/Defendant to pay the Respondent/Plaintiff UGX 32,000,000.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent.
  • Costs of the main suit awarded to the Respondent/Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Defend — Test for Granting Leave
An applicant for leave to appear and defend a summary suit must show by affidavit that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law. The applicant is not bound to show a good defence on the merits but must satisfy the court that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried. General or vague statements denying liability will not suffice; the defence must be stated with sufficient particularity to appear genuine.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Payment as Defence to Debt Claim
An assertion of payment made towards a debt, without supporting documentary evidence, amounts to an admission of indebtedness and does not constitute a plausible defence. The party alleging payment bears the burden of proving that fact and must provide evidence at the application stage, not merely promise to produce it at trial.
Contract Law — Loan Agreements — Interpretation of Interest Clauses
Where a loan agreement stipulates that interest is payable at a specified rate per month for a limited number of defaults, after which the principal sum must be paid in full, no further interest accrues beyond the stipulated default period. The court will calculate the total debt as the principal plus interest for the specified default period only.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (11)

  • Africa One Logistics Ltd v Kazi Food Logistics (U) Ltd (HCMA No. 964 of 2019)
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Jamil Ssenyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (HCCS No. 180 of 2012)
  • MMK Engineering v Mantrust Uganda Limited (HCMA No. 128 of 2021)
  • Bhaker Kotecha v Adum Muhammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Souza Fiquerido & Co. Ltd v Moorings Hotel Co. Ltd (1959) EA 425
  • Senkungu and 4 Others v Mukasa (SCCA No. 17 of 2014)
  • Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (SCCA No. 28 of 1993) [1994] KALR 190
  • Post Bank (U) Ltd v Ssozi (SCCA No. 08 of 2015)
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v A. S. Ali Transporters (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 07 of 2007)
  • VS Hydro Uganda Ltd and 3 Others v UAP Old Mutual Insurance Uganda Ltd (HCMA No. 2493 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Masia Flavia v Avako Winnie (Miscellaneous Application 120 of 2023) [2026] UGHC 842 (27 July 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.