Mutyabule Judith v Bank of Africa Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 2126 of 2025)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The court held that an application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit filed on the day after a Sunday deadline was filed in time under Order 51 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 34 of the Interpretation Act. The applicant raised triable issues by denying receipt of the loan and asserting she was not the holder of the account to which the loan was allegedly advanced. Unconditional leave to appear and defend was granted.

Outcome

Applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the summary suit

Facts

The respondent bank filed a summary suit seeking recovery of UGX 91,000,000 allegedly advanced as a loan to the applicant on 24 December 2021 to account number 09597500329. The applicant denied receiving the loan and asserted she was not the holder of that account. She stated she had been a customer for seven years and obtained only three loans: UGX 33,000,000 in April 2016, a top-up loan of UGX 74,000,000 in March 2018, and UGX 4,200,000 in March 2020. She claimed her bank statements showed several loans she did not apply for or receive, including the UGX 91,000,000 loan. She resigned from her employment in February 2022 and continued remitting instalments from Rwanda until January 2023. An insurance company paid off UGX 25,000,000 of outstanding instalments. The applicant sought leave to appear and defend, arguing there were triable issues requiring reconciliation of accounts.

Issues

1. Whether the instant application was filed out of time.
2. Whether the applicant ought to be granted unconditional leave to defend Civil Suit No. 997 of 2025.

Orders

• The applicant is hereby granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 997 of 2025.
• The applicant is to file her defence within ten (10) days from the date herein.
• The respondent shall file a reply to the written statement of defense within 5 days of the defense.
• The parties are to file their pre trial documents within 15 days of filing the reply to the defense.
• The parties are to appear for the scheduling conference on 19th March 2026 at 11am.
• The costs of this application are in the cause in case a defence is filed, but upon default they will be borne by the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 36 rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 36 rule 4
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 52 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 52 rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 51 rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 15 rule 3
• Interpretation Act Cap. 2 s.34

Cases cited (9)

• Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
• Board of Governors Nebbi Town S.S.S v Jaker Food Stores Limited (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0062 of 2016)
• Visare Uganda Limited v Muwema and Co. Advocates and Solicitors (Miscellaneous Application Nos. 0826 and 0827 of 2023)
• Kinyanjui and another v Thande and another [1995-1998] 2 EA 159
• Continental Butchery Ltd v Nthiwa (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1977)
• Children of Africa v Sarick Construction Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 134 of 2016)
• Provincial Insurance Co. of East Africa Ltd v Kivuti [1995-1998] 1 EA 283
• William Kyobe v Geoffrey Gatete and Angella Maria Nakigonya (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2005)
• Post Bank (U) Limited v William Barigye (Civil Appeal No. 301 of 2018)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Sentongo David Segawa v Dr. Dan Kyagengera Kisitu and Another (Miscellaneous Application 1 of 2025) followed

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