Wakilii

Norasa Technical Services Ltd and Others v Centenary Rural Development Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 1443 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 211 · 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 for recovery of loan debt
Decision
Applicants granted leave to appear and defend the 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 granted the applicants unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit for loan recovery. The applicants demonstrated a bona fide triable issue regarding the amount claimed, specifically a dispute over whether payments made reduced the debt and how interest was calculated. The court held that where there is a dispute as to the amount claimed which requires taking an account to determine, the applicant is entitled to leave to defend.

Outcome

Applicants granted leave to appear and defend the underlying summary suit

Facts

The respondent bank filed a summary suit against the applicants for recovery of UGX 307,118,763 being outstanding loan debt plus contractual interest at 21.5% per annum. The loan was advanced to the first applicant for financing a contract for rehabilitation of district and community roads in Adjumani district. The second and third applicants provided personal guarantees. The respondent claimed the first applicant defaulted on repayment. The applicants disputed the amount claimed, arguing they had paid UGX 350,000,000 towards principal and interest. The respondent contended that two loan facilities totaling UGX 600,000,000 were issued, and that at the time of the second facility the first applicant was already indebted to the tune of UGX 321,802,581. The applicants sought leave to appear and defend the summary suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants have disclosed a triable issue of fact or law thereby entitling them to a grant of leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 0669 of 2024.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 0669 of 2024.
  • The applicant shall file their defence and serve it on the respondent/plaintiff within fourteen days from the date of this ruling.
  • The costs of this application will abide the results of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Grant of Leave
For an applicant to be granted leave to appear and defend a summary suit, the applicant must show that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law that he or she will advance in defence of the suit. The defendant is not bound to show a good defence on the merits but should satisfy the court that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Unconditional Leave — Grounds for Grant
Unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit will be granted where the applicant shows that he or she has a good defence on the merits, or that a difficult point of law is involved, or that there is a dispute which ought to be tried, or a real dispute as to the amount claimed which requires taking an account to determine, or any other circumstances showing reasonable grounds of a bona fide defence.
Banking & Finance — Loan Recovery — Dispute as to Amount — Effect on Summary Suit
Where there is a dispute as to the amount claimed in a loan recovery suit which requires taking an account to determine the loan amount owed, the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to appear and defend the summary suit.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • M.M.K Engineering v Mantrust Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 128 of 2012)
  • Bhaker Kotecha v Adam Muhammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Makula Interglobal Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Norasa Technical Services Ltd and Others v Centenary Rural Development Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 1443 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 211 (8 July 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.