MTK (U) Ltd v Housing Finance Bank (U) Ltd (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 62 of 2021)
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
A corporate guarantor remains liable under a guarantee agreement notwithstanding the death of the principal debtor where the guarantee expressly provides for liability in the event of death. The death of the principal debtor does not extinguish the guarantor's obligation, and letters of administration are not required where the claim is against the guarantor company, not the deceased's estate. An applicant seeking leave to defend must disclose triable issues; mere denials are insufficient.
Outcome
Application for leave to appear and defend dismissed; applicant company remains liable under corporate guarantee
Facts
MTK Uganda Limited stood as corporate guarantor for a loan advanced by Housing Finance Bank to an employee. The employee died on 12 September 2020 while the loan was in default. The bank filed a summary suit against the guarantor company. The company applied for leave to appear and defend, arguing that the debtor's death suspended the relationship between debtor and guarantor, that the deceased's estate had not been administered, and that letters of administration were required before any claim could be pursued. The corporate guarantee dated 4 March 2019 contained clauses 1.3 and 2.1 expressly providing that the guarantor would remain liable notwithstanding the death of the customer. A deed of undertaking dated 29 January 2019 provided for remittance of the debtor's terminal benefits upon termination of employment.
Issues
- Whether the application raises triable issues for which the applicant should be granted leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 15 of 2021
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (15)
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 r.3
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 r.4
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 r.8
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 r.3
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 8 r.3
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 r.3
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 r.13
- Contracts Act s.68
- Contracts Act s.70
- Succession Act s.268
- Succession Act s.286
- Employment Act s.87
Cases cited (6)
- Moschi Vs. Lep Air Services and Ors M9721 2 All ER 392 at Page 397
- Alice Norah Mukasa v Centenary Bank Limited and Bonny Nuwagaba (Civil Suit No. 77 of 2010)
- Miter Investments Ltd v East African Portland Cement Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 336 of 2012)
- Paul Kasaqga and Another v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 113 of 2008)
- Juliet Kalema v William Kalema and Another (H.C.Civil Suit No. 1474 of 2000)
- Ignatius Kajubi v Canan Wanyama (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2002)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.