Narathius Asingwire and Another v Anthony Natif (Miscellaneous Application 665 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 High Court granted judgment on admission for UGX 75,000,000 where the respondent had clearly admitted in his defence that he was indebted to the applicants in that amount. The court held that the admission was clear, plain, obvious and unambiguous, leaving no room for doubt. The respondent was bound by his pleading and could not resile from it in his affidavit opposing the application.

Outcome

Judgment on admission entered for UGX 75,000,000 in favour of the applicants

Facts

The applicants claimed UGX 90,000,000 in Civil Suit No. 259 of 2025 arising from a land sale transaction. The respondent had purchased land at UGX 1,050,000,000 and paid a down payment of UGX 900,000,000, leaving a balance of UGX 150,000,000. The respondent made further payments and in his defence to the main suit, stated that as of 25th April 2025, the outstanding balance due to the applicants stood at UGX 75,000,000. The applicants applied for judgment on admission for this amount. The respondent opposed the application, claiming that the acreage of the land was less than stated in the sale agreement and that the correct amount due required consideration of the actual acreage. The respondent and his advocate did not appear at the hearing and the application proceeded ex parte.

Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to judgment on admission for UGX 75,000,000 in respect of their claim in Civil Suit No. 259 of 2025.

Orders

• Application allowed.
• The respondent (Anthony Natif) shall pay UGX 75,000,000 (Uganda shillings seventy-five million) to the applicants.
• The costs of this application shall abide by the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 13 rule 6
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 13 rule 8

Cases cited (2)

• Nevia Company Ltd v Biersdorf AG (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2014)
• Fang Min v Belex Tours & Travel Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2014)

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.

• Francis Magambe Byaruhanga v Lule Edward Mutimba Desh and Others (Miscellaneous Appeal No 37 of 2025)

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