Wakilii

Pearl Dairy Farms Limited v Zhuang Shaolong T/A Good Home Supermarket (HCT-01-CV-MA-0119-2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 540 · 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 debt
Decision
Applicant granted unconditional leave to 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 High Court granted Pearl Dairy Farms Limited unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit brought by Zhuang Shaolong T/A Good Home Supermarket for recovery of UGX 80,941,800 allegedly owed for undelivered milk products. The court held that the applicant raised bona fide triable issues of law and fact, including fundamental denials of any contractual relationship, allegations that key documents were forged, and serious questions about the respondent's cause of action. The respondent's failure to file an affidavit in reply left these serious allegations unchallenged, strengthening the case for a full trial.

Outcome

Applicant granted unconditional leave to defend the underlying summary suit

Facts

Zhuang Shaolong T/A Good Home Supermarket filed a summary suit against Pearl Dairy Farms Limited seeking recovery of UGX 80,941,800 for allegedly undelivered milk products. The respondent claimed to have made payments between June and September 2024 for various quantities of milk and powdered milk but received incomplete deliveries or no deliveries at all. Pearl Dairy Farms applied for leave to appear and defend, denying any contractual relationship with the respondent, denying receipt of any payments, and alleging that the proforma invoice attached to the plaint was forged. The applicant contended the claims were fraudulent and extortionate. The respondent was properly served with the application but failed to file an affidavit in reply.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant should be granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 72 of 2024.

Orders

  • The Applicant is granted unconditional leave to appear and defend HCT-01-CV-CS-0072-2024.
  • The Applicant shall file its Written Statement of Defence to HCT-01-CV-CS-0072-2024 within 15 days from the date of delivery of this Ruling.
  • Costs of this Application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Summary Procedure — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Granting Leave
Leave to appear and defend a summary suit should be granted unless it is clear that there is no defense whatsoever. A defendant is not required to prove their defense conclusively at the preliminary stage but must show that the defense is not a sham and raises a triable issue that is arguable.
Summary Procedure — Allegations of Forgery and Fraud — Effect on Leave to Defend
Where a defendant alleges forgery of key documentary evidence or fraud, leave to defend should be granted as a matter of course because such allegations are inherently complex and require detailed examination through discovery, cross-examination, and potentially expert evidence at a full trial.
Summary Procedure — Fundamental Denial of Contractual Relationship — Triable Issue
A defendant's unequivocal denial of any contractual relationship with the plaintiff, coupled with denial of receipt of payments and alleged failure to deliver goods, raises fundamental triable issues of fact that cannot be resolved without a full trial and warrants the grant of leave to defend.
Summary Procedure — Failure to File Affidavit in Reply — Effect
Where a respondent fails to file an affidavit in reply to an application for leave to defend despite proper service, the facts deposed in the applicant's affidavit are presumed to be true for the purposes of the application, and serious allegations including forgery and denial of contractual relationship stand unrefuted, strengthening the case for granting leave.
Summary Procedure — Unconditional Leave — When Appropriate
Unconditional leave to appear and defend is appropriate when the defendant has raised a strong prima facie defense that does not appear to be a mere delaying tactic and the defense appears substantial, going to the very root of the alleged indebtedness and contractual relationship.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (8)

  • Home & Overseas Trading Co. Ltd v Standard Bank (Uganda) Ltd [1967] EA 87
  • Maluku Interglobal Agencies v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Zola and Another v Ralli Brothers Ltd [1969] EA 691
  • Begumisa v East African Development Bank [2004] 2 EA 153
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Yorkshire Insurance Co. Ltd [1983] HCB 71
  • Patel v Metro Cash & Carry Ltd [2001] 1 EA 188
  • Kotecha v Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Wambuzi v Mbale Municipal Council [1986] HCB 47

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Pearl Dairy Farms Limited v Zhuang Shaolong T_A Good Home Supermarket (HCT-01-CV-MA-0119-2024) [2025] UGHC 540 (14 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.