Wakilii

Nile Bank v Nafeero (Civil Suit 601 of 1992)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 31 · 1993 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend in a summary suit for debt recovery
Decision
Defendant granted unconditional leave to defend; matter to proceed to trial

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 where a defendant in a summary suit shows definite triable issues of fact or law by affidavit, unconditional leave to defend must be granted. The applicant raised triable issues by denying indebtedness and asserting the money was medical disbursement for her children, not a loan to her personally. The conflicting affidavits created oath-against-oath scenarios requiring cross-examination, not summary determination. Application allowed.

Outcome

Defendant granted unconditional leave to defend; matter to proceed to trial

Facts

Nile Bank sued the defendant in a summary suit for debt recovery. The defendant applied under O.33 r.4 and r.8, O.48 r.1 CPR for unconditional leave to defend. She claimed the loan was not advanced to her personally but to her children Ruth Nantongo and William Kityo as medical disbursement, Ruth being an employee of the plaintiff bank. She denied indebtedness and stated her account was used for convenience. The plaintiff filed an affidavit in reply through its Director of Credit, asserting the defendant was indebted under a loan agreement. The application was contested.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant/applicant demonstrated definite triable issues of fact or law warranting unconditional leave to defend the summary suit.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Defendant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the suit.
  • Costs of the application to abide the result of the main suit.
  • Defendant to file written statement of defence within ten days from the date of this ruling.

Rules and key headnotes

Summary Suits — Leave to Defend — Test for Unconditional Leave
A defendant in a summary suit is entitled to unconditional leave to appear and defend if the defendant shows by affidavit that there is a definite triable issue of fact or law; the defendant need not prove the defence at this stage but must demonstrate it is stateable and arguable.
Summary Suits — Conflicting Affidavits — Oath Against Oath
Where there is an assertion on oath in a supporting affidavit and a denial on oath in an affidavit in reply, the court cannot decide the truth at the interlocutory stage; such conflicting affidavits constitute a triable issue requiring oral evidence and cross-examination.

Cases cited (5)

  • C.T. Bowring & Co. v A.B. Adam (17 EACA 92)
  • Kirat Singh & Co. Vs. Punja Meghji & Sons (1932) 1934 C.A. 33
  • Kundanlala Restaurant vs. Devshi & Co. (1932) 1934 C.A. 77
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd. vs. Bank of Uganda (1983) H.C.D. 533
  • Nile Bank (U) Ltd. v Bakunda (U) Ltd. (High Court Civil Suit No. 600 of 1992)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nile Bank v Nafeero (Civil Suit 601 of 1992) [1993] UGHC 31 (18 January 1993)
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.