Wakilii

Nabanja Christine Ndugwa t a Bright Future Nursery & Primary School v Cairo Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 1329 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 375 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appear and defend in a summary suit, with preliminary objection raised on competence
Decision
Application dismissed as incompetent; default judgment entered in favour of plaintiff in underlying summary suit

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 application for leave to appear and defend filed two days late without seeking extension of time was incompetent. Where filing fees were paid only months after the purported filing date, the application was deemed filed on the date fees were paid. The court entered default judgment for the plaintiff in the underlying summary suit under Order 36 Rule 3(2) CPR, awarding the principal sum with interest reduced from 30% to 20% per annum pursuant to Section 26 CPA.

Outcome

Application dismissed as incompetent; default judgment entered in favour of plaintiff in underlying summary suit

Facts

The respondent bank filed a summary suit (Civil Suit No. 645 of 2025) against the applicant claiming UGX 1,830,111,881 with interest at 30% per annum. Summons were served on the applicant's lawyers on 5 June 2025. The applicant filed an application for leave to appear and defend on 17 June 2025, two days outside the prescribed time limit. No application for extension of time was filed. Filing fees for the application were only paid on 30 September 2025, months after the purported filing date. At the hearing on 10 October 2025, neither the applicant nor the applicant's counsel appeared. The respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection on the competence of the application based on late filing and late payment of fees.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for leave to appear and defend was filed within the prescribed time.
  2. Whether the application was competent where filing fees were paid months after the purported filing date.
  3. Whether the applicant was entitled to default judgment in the underlying summary suit.

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. 1329 of 2025 is incompetent.
  • Default judgment entered in Civil Suit No. 645 of 2025 in favour of the respondent under Order 36 Rule 3(2) of the CPR.
  • Judgment sum of UGX 1,830,111,881 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Interest on the decretal sum awarded at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit and the application awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Effective Service — Definition and Effect
Effective service of summons means service that produces the desired or intended result, such that where lawyers receive summons and subsequently file an application in response, service is deemed effective even if the application is filed late.
Civil Procedure — Time Limits — Extension of Time — Necessity of Application
Where an application for leave to appear and defend is filed outside the prescribed time limit, the applicant must file an application for extension of time or seek leave from court; failure to do so renders the application incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Filing of Documents — Payment of Filing Fees — Effect of Late Payment
In law, an application is deemed filed on the date when filing fees are paid, not on the date of purported filing; where fees are paid months after the initial filing, the application is treated as filed on the later date.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Default Judgment — Incompetent Application for Leave to Defend
Where an application for leave to appear and defend in a summary suit is found to be incompetent, the court may enter default judgment in favour of the plaintiff under Order 36 Rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Commercial Law — Interest — Reduction of Contractual Interest Rate — Court's Discretion
The court has discretion under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act to reduce a claimed interest rate where it considers the rate harsh and unreasonable, and may substitute a lower rate it deems appropriate.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Geoffrey Gatete and Another v William Kyobe (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nabanja Christine Ndugwa t a Bright Future Nursery & Primary School v Cairo Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 1329 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 375 (10 October 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.