Paul Kasagga and Anor v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 113 of 2008)
Observed later treatment
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 where guarantors failed to raise a bonafide triable issue. The court held that personal guarantees executed for overdraft facilities in 2005 remained valid continuing security for a restructured loan in 2007. Demand was properly served. However, the court stayed enforcement against the guarantors pending determination of the principal debtor's liability in the main suit, recognising that a guarantor's obligation is co-extensive with and accessory to the principal debtor's obligation.
Outcome
Application dismissed but enforcement against guarantors stayed pending determination of principal debtor's liability
Facts
Barclays Bank sued to recover UGX 2,211,653,283 from M/s Zzimwe Enterprises Hardware & Construction Ltd and the applicants as guarantors. Between May 2005 and May 2006, Zzimwe obtained three overdraft facilities from Nile Bank totalling UGX 1,600,000,000, secured by personal guarantees executed by the applicants as company directors. Zzimwe defaulted and at its request Nile Bank restructured the debt into a loan in January 2007. Barclays acquired Nile Bank in 2007 and made demand on the guarantors in November 2007. The applicants sought leave to defend, arguing the guarantees were unrelated to the claim and unenforceable. In a related application, the principal debtor Zzimwe had been granted leave to contest the amount owing.
Issues
- Whether the applicants demonstrated a bonafide triable issue to warrant unconditional leave to appear and defend.
- Whether the guarantee deeds executed in 2005 relating to overdraft facilities remained enforceable security for a loan agreement executed in 2007.
- Whether demand had been made upon the guarantors in respect of the guarantees.
- Whether guarantors should be permitted to defend when the principal debtor's indebtedness remains undetermined.
Orders
- The Applicants' application to appear and defend Civil Suit No 51 of 2008 is dismissed.
- The Respondent is not to exercise its rights to recover from the Applicants, as guarantors, until the 1st Defendant's indebtedness is determined in Civil Suit No. 51 of 2008.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (4)
- Muluku Interglobal Trade Agencies v Bank of Uganda (1985) HCB 65
- Tororo District Administration v Andalap Industries (1997) IV KALR 126
- Massa v Achieng (1978) HCB 297
- Abubakar Kato Kasule v Tomson Muhwezi (1992-1997) HCB 212
Cases citing this judgment (2)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.