Wakilii

Melvin Mpambara and Another v Bainomugisha Gaude (Miscellaneous Application No.25 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1224 · 2025 Application 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 High Court Civil Suit No. 146 of 2023
Decision
Applicants granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the underlying summary suit

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 the applicants unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit. The court held that preliminary objections based on the absence of an affidavit from the second applicant and technical defects in annexure stamping were without merit. The applicants raised bona fide triable issues including privity of contract, the legal existence of the second defendant, admissibility of an unstamped and incomplete deed, and vicarious liability, which could not be resolved under summary procedure and required a full trial.

Outcome

Applicants granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the underlying summary suit

Facts

The respondent filed a summary suit (Civil Suit No. 146 of 2023) claiming UGX 249,200,000 from the applicants based on a Deed of Agreement. The applicants sought unconditional leave to appear and defend, arguing that the first applicant was not a party to the alleged agreement, the second defendant (Directors of Kabale Institute of Health Sciences) may not exist as a legal entity, the Deed of Agreement was unstamped and incomplete (lacking schedules A and B), and the claim involved vicarious liability requiring full investigation. The respondent raised preliminary objections that the application was incompetent because the second applicant did not swear an affidavit and the first applicant's affidavit annexure was defectively stamped. The respondent maintained that the applicants admitted obtaining the loan and that the application was a delaying tactic.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is competently before the Court.
  2. Whether the 1st Applicant has raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 146 of 2023.

Orders

  • The Applicants are hereby granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 146 of 2023.
  • The Applicants are ordered to file their Written Statement of Defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Granting Leave
For leave to appear and defend a summary suit to be granted, an applicant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law which is not frivolous or vexatious and which cannot be conveniently or satisfactorily resolved under summary procedure.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Scope of Summary Procedure
Summary procedure is resorted to in clear and straightforward cases where the demand is liquidated and there are no issues for determination by court except for the grant of the claim.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Defects in Annexures — Commissioner for Oaths Certification
The purpose of Rule 8 of the Commissioner for Oaths Rules is to ensure authentication of documents referred to in and attached to an affidavit. Where an annexure is described in the affidavit, sealed and signed by the Commissioner for Oaths but not marked with serial identification, the omission is a minor irregularity curable under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution and does not render the affidavit invalid.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Existence of Legal Entity
Where a party alleges the existence of a legal entity as a defendant, the onus to prove the existence of that entity by producing a certificate of incorporation or other evidence lies on the party making the allegation.
Contract Law — Privity of Contract — Defence in Summary Suit
A defence that a party was not a party to the contract relied upon by the plaintiff raises a bona fide triable issue of privity of contract which cannot be resolved under summary procedure and warrants leave to defend.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (16)

  • Robert Okiza v Ahimbisibwe Israel (HCMA No. 471 of 2006)
  • Miter Investments Ltd v East African Portland Cement & Another (HCMA No. 0336 of 2012)
  • Kotecha v Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Okana David v Ocaya Robert (Revision Cause No. 5 of 2020)
  • Yowabu Kamukuha v Bakuru Moses & Others (HCT-05-CV-MA-114-2009)
  • Kasala Growers Cooperative Society v Kakooza Jonathan & Kalemera Edson (SSCA No. 19/2010)
  • Matovu & 2 Ors v Abacus Pharmacy (Africa) Ltd (HCCA No. 11 of 2012)
  • Bunjo Jonathan v KCB Bank Uganda Ltd (MA No. 174/2014)
  • Makula Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Yawe Paul Kyamufumba & Another v Namagembe Mary & Another (HC-MA-37-2022)
  • China Railway No. 3 Engineering Co. Ltd v Prof. Arthur Gakwandi (HCMA No. 0025/2023)
  • Baryaija Julius v Kikwesire Zaverio & Anor (Civil Application No. 324 of 2016)
  • Makula Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Wasswa Kitatta Kibirango & Anor v Ssebiso Peter (HCMA No. 2716/2023)
  • Jamil Ssenyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (H.C. Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
  • Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd v Bombay Garage [1958] EA 741

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Melvin Mpambara and Another v Bainomugisha Gaude (Miscellaneous Application No.25 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 1224 (27 October 2025)
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.