Wakilii

Mugenyi Hatim v Isaac Nsereko (Miscellaneous Application 406 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 121 · 2026 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 proceedings
Decision
Applicant granted unconditional leave to defend; matter to proceed to trial on the merits

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 held that an affidavit need not be deponed by a party provided the deponent has knowledge or belief of the facts, and no written authority is required. On the merits, where a defendant disputes liability and raises issues that cannot be determined summarily, unconditional leave to appear and defend must be granted. The applicant's denial of indebtedness and assertion of completed land sale transactions raised triable issues requiring full trial.

Outcome

Applicant granted unconditional leave to defend; matter to proceed to trial on the merits

Facts

The respondent filed a summary suit claiming UGX 841,225,000 allegedly paid to the applicant for a business venture involving Cash Telex City Uganda, which the applicant allegedly failed to remit. The applicant applied for leave to appear and defend, contending that the parties had entered into two land sale agreements totalling UGX 750,000,000 plus UGX 91,000,000 for removal of caveats, which transactions were fully executed, and that he was not indebted to the respondent. The respondent opposed, arguing the land sales were a different transaction and that the applicant had received investment funds which he misappropriated. The respondent also raised a preliminary objection that the supporting affidavit was defective because it was deponed by a non-party without proper authority.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in support of the application is defective for being deponed by a non-party without proper authority.
  2. Whether the applicant has demonstrated a bona fide triable issue of fact or law warranting unconditional leave to appear and defend.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 0165 of 2025.
  • Applicant ordered to file Written Statement of Defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • Costs of this application to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Deponent's Authority — Requirement for Written Authority
There is no basis in the rules of evidence or procedure for the principle that where there is no written authority to swear an affidavit on behalf of others, the affidavit is defective. What is required in affidavits is the knowledge or belief of the deponent, rather than authorisation by a party to the litigation.
Civil Procedure — Summary Judgment — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Granting Leave
Before leave to appear and defend is granted under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the defendant must show by affidavit that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law. The defendant is not bound to show a good defence on merits, but should satisfy the court that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried. The court should not enter upon the trial of the issues disclosed at this stage.
Civil Procedure — Summary Judgment — Denial of Liability — Effect on Summary Judgment Application
Where liability to pay is denied, it is plainly wrong to grant an application for summary judgment. Issues raised by the applicant and the response by the respondent that cannot be determined summarily without a trial must proceed to full hearing.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (12)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mugenyi Hatim v Isaac Nsereko (Miscellaneous Application 406 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 121 (19 March 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.