Wakilii

Mulindwa Nathan v Kiboko Enterprises Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2471 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 172 · 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 a specially endorsed plaint under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Decision
Applicant granted unconditional leave to defend; matter to proceed to full trial

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 the main suit. The applicant demonstrated a prima facie defence by showing disputes regarding the manner of contract termination, the calculation of the debt claimed, and the legality of the respondent's repossession of stock. The court held that these disputes raised triable issues requiring a full hearing, including the applicant's counterclaim for breach of contract and recovery of security deposit.

Outcome

Applicant granted unconditional leave to defend; matter to proceed to full trial

Facts

The applicant entered into a two-year distributorship agreement with the respondent on 1 December 2022, furnishing security of UGX 20,000,000. The respondent stationed employees at the applicant's shop who supervised sales across multiple districts. In February 2024, the respondent repossessed all distributed stock without notice. Subsequently, the respondent made varying demands for payment ranging from UGX 114,000,000 to UGX 80,595,700 (the amount claimed in the plaint). The respondent contended the applicant owed UGX 279,214,708, recovered stock valued at UGX 150,170,400, processed a credit note, applied discounts, deducted the security deposit, and calculated the outstanding balance at UGX 97,732,676. The applicant disputed the debt calculation and alleged breach of contract.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has a good defence on the merits to the respondent's claim for recovery of money under a specially endorsed plaint.
  2. Whether there is a real dispute as to the amount claimed which requires taking an account to determine.
  3. Whether there is a dispute as to facts which ought to be tried, particularly regarding breach of contract and the legality of the respondent's repossession of stock.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicant unconditionally allowed to file defence within 14 days from the date of ruling.
  • Respondent to make a reply, if any, within 7 days.
  • Parties to file Joint Scheduling Memorandum and respective trial bundles on or before 11 June 2025.
  • Main suit to come up for mention on 18 June 2025 at 8:30am.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Order 36 — Leave to Defend — Threshold for Grant
A defendant is granted leave to appear and defend under Order 36 if able to show a good defence on the merits, or that a difficult point of law is involved, or a dispute as to the facts which ought to be tried, or a real dispute as to the amount claimed which requires taking an account to determine, or any other circumstances showing reasonable grounds of a bona fide defence.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Order 36 — Defence — Annexing Draft Written Statement of Defence
In an application for leave to appear and defend in summary suits, it serves good practice for the intended Written Statement of Defence to be annexed to the Notice of Motion as it helps the judge determine whether to refuse or grant the application and demonstrates the applicant's seriousness.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Order 36 — Standard of Proof at Leave Stage
When determining an application for leave to defend, the court is not required to be satisfied that the applicant has shown a good defence on the merits, but rather to identify issues or questions in the dispute which necessitate a trial. The court should not enter to determine the issues disclosed at this stage.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Order 36 — Dispute as to Amount — Certainty of Liquidated Claim
Where a plaintiff makes varying demands for different sums over time and the defendant disputes the calculation of the debt, this raises a question as to the certainty of the liquidated amount claimed which can only be resolved upon evidence being adduced in court, thereby satisfying the threshold for leave to defend.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (11)

  • Post Bank (U) Ltd v Abdul Ssozi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2015)
  • Zola & Another v. Ralli Brothers Ltd. & Another [1969] EA 691
  • Kotecha v. Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Saw V Hakim 5 TLR 72
  • Ray v Barker 4 Ex DI 279
  • Churanjilal and Co. v A.H. Adam (1950) 17 EACA 92
  • Hasmani v Banque du Congo Belge (1938) 5 EACA 89
  • Eco Bank Uganda Limited v Kalson's Agrovet Concern Ltd & Anor (High Court Civil Suit No. 573 of 2016)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Mukoome Agencies [1982] HCB 22
  • Board of Governors Nebbi Town S.S.S v Jaker Food Stores Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 0062 of 2016)
  • Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v. Paphos Wine Industries Ltd, [1951] 1 All ER 873

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mulindwa Nathan v Kiboko Enterprises Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2471 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 172 (7 May 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.