Wakilii

Moha Construction Limited v Kabuye Gideon Kirumira (Misc. Application No. 179 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 145 · 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 arising from summary suit for recovery of money
Decision
Applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the main 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 court granted the applicant unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit for recovery of money. The applicant disputed the agreement relied upon by the respondent, alleging it was a forgery and that the purchase price had been paid in full. The court held that allegations of forgery and disputes over the authenticity of the agreement raised triable issues of law and fact that could not be resolved by affidavit evidence, placing the matter outside the scope of summary procedure.

Outcome

Applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit

Facts

The respondent sold land to Mr. Kitaka Muhammad in 2019 for UGX 150,000,000. In 2020, the respondent requested to repurchase the land due to squatter issues. The applicant company purchased the land from the respondent for UGX 300,000,000, which the applicant claims was paid in full at execution. The respondent subsequently filed a summary suit claiming the applicant owed UGX 450,000,000 as the balance of a UGX 750,000,000 purchase price under an agreement. The applicant disputed this agreement, alleging it was a forgery and that the deponent, an illiterate, never signed any agreement for UGX 750,000,000. The respondent contended the applicant obtained signed transfer forms and the certificate of title on the understanding that transfer would occur only upon full payment.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 23 of 2025?
  2. Whether the application was filed out of time?
  3. Whether the affidavit in support and rejoinder should be struck off the record for non-compliance with the Oaths Act?

Orders

  • The Applicant is hereby granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 23 of 2025.
  • The Applicant shall file and serve its Written Statement of Defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • The Respondent shall file his reply to the Written Statement of Defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the Written Statement of Defence.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Leave to 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 bonafide triable issue of fact or law. A triable issue is one capable of being resolved through a legal trial and arises when a material proposition of law or fact is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Allegations of Forgery — Suitability for Summary Determination
Allegations of forgery cannot be resolved by way of affidavit evidence and raise triable issues that place a matter outside the ambit of summary procedure under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Illiterate Deponents — Compliance with Oaths Act
Where a Commissioner for Oaths administers an oath in an affidavit to a deponent after a third party has effectively interpreted the contents of the affidavit to the deponent to his or her understanding, the affidavit should not be regarded as irredeemably defective merely because the certification of the jurat was made by the interpreter instead of the Commissioner for Oaths as provided in Form B of the First Schedule to the Oaths Act. Such deviation is insubstantial and does not seriously flout the intention of the Legislature.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Scope of Application — Clear and Straightforward Cases
Summary procedure is resorted to in clear and straightforward cases where the demand is liquidated and there are no issues for determination by the court except for the grant of the claim. Where disputes arise over the authenticity of agreements or the existence of indebtedness, the matter falls outside the scope of summary procedure.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (17)

  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
  • Oloo Paul v Dr. Lokii John Baptist & Another (Election Petition No. 06 of 2021)
  • Namboowa Rashiida v Bavekuno Mafumu Godfrey Kyeswa and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 69 of 2016)
  • Nanjibhai Prabhudas & Co. Ltd Vs Standard Bank Ltd [1968] EA 670
  • Hon. Lillian Nakatte Segujja and Another v Nabukenya Brenda (Election Petition Appeals No. 17 and 21 of 2016)
  • Sterling Travel & Tours Services Ltd & Another v Millenium Travel & Tour Services Ltd (Misc. Application No. 116 of 2013)
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd Vs Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Omonyi William Watmon v Habib Bar & Lounge Ltd (Misc. Application No. 730 of 2020)
  • Jamil Ssenyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (High Court Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
  • Children of Africa v Sarick Construction Ltd (High Court Misc. Application No. 134 of 2016)
  • Bunjo v KCB Bank (Uganda) Ltd (High Court Misc. Application No. 174 of 2014)
  • Corporate Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Nyali Beach Hotel Ltd [1995-1998] 1 EA 7
  • Imaging the World Africa (ITWA) Limited and Another v Nagawa Juliet Luggya (High Court Misc. Application No. 111 of 2023)
  • Bhaker Kotecha Vs Adam Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Geoffrey Gatete & Another v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
  • Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd Vs Bombay Garage [1958] EA 741
  • Churanjila & Co. Vs A.H Adam (1) [1950] 17 EACA 92

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Moha Construction Limited v Kabuye Gideon Kirumira (Misc. Application No. 179 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 145 (30 April 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.