MTN (U) Ltd v Henry Kabaale (HCT-00-CV-CS 504 of 2002)
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
Held that where a defendant enters into a written agreement for provision of telecommunication services and acknowledges indebtedness through multiple written commitments, and fails to attend trial despite substituted service, the plaintiff discharges the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities. Judgment entered for the plaintiff for the outstanding debt with interest from the date of filing suit.
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff with interest and costs; defendant's counterclaim dismissed for non-appearance
Facts
In 2000, the defendant applied to the plaintiff MTN (U) Ltd for provision of telecommunication services on credit. The services were installed on the defendant's premises under a written agreement signed in March 2000. The defendant accumulated a debit balance of Shs42,717,505/= which remained unpaid. The defendant filed a counterclaim alleging misrepresentation regarding replacement of a digital telephone system with an analogue system in February 2001, causing financial losses. The defendant's counsel declined service of hearing notices due to loss of contact with the defendant. Substituted service was effected by advertisement in the New Vision newspaper on 24 January 2007. On the hearing date, neither the defendant nor his counsel appeared. The plaintiff presented evidence including the written agreement, statement of account showing the outstanding balance, and multiple letters from the defendant acknowledging the debt and committing to payment.
Issues
- Whether the defendant owes the plaintiff the sums claimed.
- What remedies are available to the plaintiff.
Orders
- Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of Shs42,717,505/=.
- Plaintiff awarded interest at the Court rate from the date of filing this suit until payment in full.
- Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit.
- Defendant's counterclaim dismissed under Order 9 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Evidence Act s.100
- Evidence Act s.101
- Evidence Act s.102
- Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.22
Cases cited (1)
- Ruhini Damji Sudpra v Vijendira Damji Sisdpra (HCCS No. 501 of 1994)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.