Ndalikise Herbert Gyabi and Another v Biashara Trading Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 234 of 2017)
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
Application for leave to defend dismissed. Court held that where a borrower admits receiving a loan and fails to demonstrate that payments made relate to the debt in issue, no triable issue arises. Payment of UGX 90,000,000 towards an earlier separate loan agreement dated 20 November 2015 does not constitute payment towards a distinct loan of UGX 230,000,000 advanced under an agreement dated 27 October 2016. The lender exercised its contractual rights to recover the outstanding debt by legal action rather than by selling collateral.
Outcome
Application dismissed; judgment entered against the 1st Applicant
Facts
The 1st applicant borrowed UGX 230,000,000 from the respondent under an individual loan agreement dated 27 October 2016, with the 2nd applicant as guarantor. The applicants defaulted. The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 110 of 2017 seeking recovery. Default judgment was entered against the 2nd applicant. The 1st applicant applied for leave to defend, claiming he had paid UGX 90,000,000 towards the debt and that the respondent held two land titles as security. The respondent contended that the UGX 90,000,000 payment related to an earlier separate loan agreement dated 20 November 2015, not the debt in suit. Documentary evidence showed two distinct loan agreements with different dates and partially different collateral. The earlier loan was secured on land at Najjera which was not pledged for the 2016 loan.
Issues
- Whether the applicants should be granted leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 110 of 2017.
- Whether the applicants raised a bonafide triable issue of fact or law warranting leave to defend.
Orders
- Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.
- Leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 110 of 2017 refused.
- Judgment entered against the 1st Applicant with orders as prayed for in the plaint.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
Cases cited (2)
- Maluku Inter Global v Bank of Uganda (HCB 65 of 1995)
- Sembule Investments Ltd v Uganda Baahti Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 654 of 2009)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.