Wakilii

National Housing and Construction Company v Swatt Security Limited and Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 2736 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 149 · 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 a summary suit arising from Civil Suit No. 1392 of 2024
Decision
Applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 1392 of 2024

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 High Court Commercial Division granted unconditional leave to the applicant to appear and defend a summary suit. The court held that the applicant raised triable issues of fact including disputes over the amount owed, allegations of set-off based on contractual indemnity for thefts, and questions about payments made. Summary procedure applies only to clear and straightforward cases where the demand is liquidated and undisputed. Where the amount claimed is disputed and evidence is not straightforward, unconditional leave must be granted to allow a full trial on the merits.

Outcome

Applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 1392 of 2024

Facts

National Housing and Construction Company contracted Swatt Security Limited on 13 November 2020 to provide security services. The contract was renewed on 1 July 2021 to 31 June 2022 and services continued until 31 December 2023. Swatt Security claimed an outstanding balance of UGX 146,525,779.10 and filed Civil Suit No. 1392 of 2024 under summary procedure. National Housing denied the debt, contending that under the contract Swatt Security was obligated to indemnify it against losses from thefts. Several thefts allegedly occurred during the contract term which were not indemnified. The applicant reconciled outstanding invoices at UGX 101,358,561 against lost items valued at UGX 69,444,345, leaving UGX 31,914,216 which it claimed to have cleared. The applicant sought unconditional leave to appear and defend, raising issues of set-off and contractual indemnity.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 1392 of 2024?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Applicant is hereby granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 1392 of 2024.
  • The Applicant shall file and serve its Written Statement of Defence within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • The 1st Respondent shall file its reply to the Written Statement of Defence within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the Written Statement of Defence.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Unconditional Leave
For leave to appear and defend a summary suit to be granted, an applicant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law. A triable issue is one capable of being resolved through a legal trial — a matter that is subject or liable to judicial examination in Court. The applicant need not show a good defence on the merits but must satisfy the Court that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Scope of Application
Summary procedure is resorted to in clear and straightforward cases where the demand is liquidated and there are no issues for determination by the Court except for the grant of the claim. Where the amount claimed is in dispute and the evidence adduced is not straightforward, the matter raises triable issues of fact and falls outside the ambit of Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Contract Law — Set-off — Triable Issues in Summary Suits
Where a defendant raises a defence of set-off based on contractual indemnity obligations and disputes the amount claimed through a reconciliation of amounts owed against losses suffered, this raises a triable issue of fact warranting further investigation by the Court in a full trial. Such disputes place the matter outside the scope of summary procedure.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Conditional Leave
A court may grant conditional leave to defend by requiring the defendant to deposit security covering the decretal sum where the court is in doubt as to the merits of the intended defence but in the interest of justice is inclined to grant the application. However, such conditions should not be imposed without justification.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (10)

  • Churanjila & Co v A.H. Adam (1) [1950] 17 EACA 92
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Maria Odido v Barclays Bank of Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 645 of 2008)
  • Sahib Enterprises Ltd v Olan Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 180 of 2009)
  • Bhaker Kotecha v Adam Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Photo Focus (U) Ltd v Group Four Security Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 30 of 2000)
  • Zola and Another v Ralli Brothers Ltd and Another [1969] 1 EA 691
  • Jamil Senyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (High Court Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
  • Geoffrey Gatete & Another v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)
  • Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd v Bombay Garage [1958] EA 741

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

National Housing and Construction Company v Swatt Security Limited and Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 2736 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 149 (25 March 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.