Wakilii

Oilnet Petroleum (U) Ltd & Anor v Futures Energy Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 387 of 2015)

High Court · [2016] UGCOMMC 34 · 2016 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for unconditional leave to defend summary suit arising from Civil Suit No. 103 of 2015
Decision
Application for unconditional leave to defend refused; matter adjourned for determination of price following filing of further affidavit

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 dismissed the preliminary objection to the affidavit in reply and granted extension of time for its filing. The court found that the applicants failed to disclose a plausible defence as required by Order 36 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules because they admitted receiving petroleum products but did not specify how much they admitted owing. The respondent was held entitled to judgment for the admitted supply under Order 36 rule 6, but determination of the price per litre was stayed pending the filing of an affidavit by the applicants specifying the exact value they admit.

Outcome

Application for unconditional leave to defend refused; matter adjourned for determination of price following filing of further affidavit

Facts

The applicants entered a contract with the respondent for supply of petroleum products up to UGX 240,000,000 secured by a post-dated cheque. The respondent supplied petroleum products and presented the cheque for payment, which was dishonoured. The respondent filed a summary suit claiming UGX 126,053,560 for petroleum products supplied. The applicants applied for unconditional leave to defend, alleging that the cheque was security only and not to be banked without permission, and that the fuel supplied was less than claimed. The respondent filed an affidavit in reply seven days outside the prescribed 15-day period, supported by delivery notes showing supply of 34,942 litres and 35,002 litres of petroleum products acknowledged by the applicants. The applicants admitted receiving some fuel but disputed the value without specifying what amount they admitted owing.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in reply filed out of time should be struck out.
  2. Whether the applicants should be granted unconditional leave to defend the summary suit.
  3. Whether the applicants have established a plausible defence or triable issues to the respondent's claim.

Orders

  • Extension of time granted for filing the affidavit in reply.
  • Costs of the extension application to be borne by the respondent in any event.
  • The applicants' application for unconditional leave to defend dismissed as lacking a plausible defence.
  • Judgment on the price of petroleum products supplied stayed.
  • The second applicant ordered to file an affidavit within 7 days specifying the exact value of the petroleum products supplied.
  • The affidavit to be served on the respondent's counsel within 7 days.
  • Matter adjourned to 13 April 2016 for further examination if necessary.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Time Limits — Extension of Time — Late Filing of Affidavit in Reply
Where an affidavit in reply is filed outside the prescribed 15-day period under Order 12 rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has inherent power under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 rule 6 to enlarge time and validate the filing where no prejudice is occasioned to the other party and the purpose of service has been achieved.
Constitutional Law — Substantive Justice — Article 126(2)(e) — Application to Procedural Irregularities
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution requires courts to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities. Where a party has helped himself to a document filed late and has had ample opportunity to respond, the purpose of service is fulfilled and the late filing should not be struck out on technical grounds alone.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suit — Leave to Defend — Requirements Under Order 36 Rule 4
An application for leave to defend a summary suit under Order 36 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be supported by an affidavit stating whether the defence alleged goes to the whole or part only of the plaintiff's claim, and if part only, specifying what part. Non-compliance with this requirement is fatal to the application for unconditional leave.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suit — Plausible Defence — Standard of Proof
For leave to defend a summary suit to be granted, it is not sufficient for a defendant merely to deny the claim. The court has a duty to investigate the issues raised and the defendant must show a plausible defence with sufficient particularity that appears to be genuine.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suit — Partial Admission — Judgment for Admitted Part Under Order 36 Rule 6
Under Order 36 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where a defendant admits receipt of goods or services but contests only the quantum, the plaintiff is entitled to immediate judgment for the admitted part, with leave to defend granted only as to the quantum in dispute.
Contract Law — Sale of Goods — Price — Determination Where Contract Provides for Market Price
Where a contract for supply of goods provides for payment based on competitive market prices and the defendant admits receiving the goods but disputes the price without specifying an alternative valuation, the court may order the defendant to file an affidavit specifying the value admitted and may examine the defendant on oath to determine the market price.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (14)

  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Bank (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Spring Wood Capital Partners Ltd v TWED Consulting Company Ltd (HCMA No. 746 of 2014)
  • Kotecha v Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Sigma Mep Services (U) Ltd and 3 Others v ABC Capital Bank (HCMA No. 224 of 2015)
  • Mutaba Barisa Kweterana v Bazirakye Yeremiya and Another (Civil Application No. 158 of 2014)
  • Tropical Africa Bank Ltd v Grace Were Muhawana (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 3 of 2012)
  • Bunjo v KCB Bank (U) Ltd (HCMA No. 174 of 2014)
  • Sembule Investments Ltd v Uganda Baati (HCMA No. 664 of 2009)
  • Western Uganda Cotton Company Ltd v Dr George Asaba and Three Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 353 of 2009)
  • Mukasa Anthony Harris v Dr Bayiga Michael Philip Lulume (Election Petition Appeal No. 18 of 2007)
  • Crane Finance Company Ltd v Makerere Properties Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2001)
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agencies Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Abu Baker Kato Kasule v Tomson Muhwezi [1992-93] HCB 212
  • Corporate Insurance Co. Ltd v Nyali Beach Hotel Ltd [1995-1998] EA 7

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Oilnet Petroleum (U) Ltd & Anor v Futures Energy Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 387 of 2015) [2016] UGCommC 34 (1 April 2016)
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.