Wakilii

Rapa Thomson Ricky v Ecobank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1673 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 363 · 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 arising from summary suit for loan recovery
Decision
Applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the main 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 applicant unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit for loan recovery. The applicant raised triable issues of fact and law regarding whether his salary loan was insured, whether the bank breached the loan agreement by charging insurance fees but not taking out an insurance policy, and whether he remained indebted to the bank after the loan was written off. These issues required full trial and placed the matter outside the scope of summary procedure under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit

Facts

On 22 March 2023, the applicant obtained a salary loan of UGX 180,000,000 from the respondent bank, repayable over 48 months at 16.9% per annum interest. The applicant serviced the loan until June 2024 when he lost his salary as director of Safeboda Technologies Uganda Limited. The bank was informed of this loss. The applicant contended the loan was insured by a loan protection cover for disability and loss of income. On 27 June 2025, the applicant's account was credited with UGX 179,577,465.04, which was then debited between 27 June and 30 June 2025, and on 1 July 2025 the loan was written off. The bank filed a summary suit seeking recovery of UGX 177,117,872, claiming the applicant failed to pay from April 2024 despite reminders. The bank denied the loan was insured and argued that writing off a loan does not absolve the borrower's liability. The applicant produced evidence showing UGX 1,800,000 was debited from his account as insurance fees on 11 May 2023.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 837 of 2025?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Applicant is hereby granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 837 of 2025.
  • The Applicant shall file and serve his Written Statement of Defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • The Respondent shall file and serve its reply to the Written Statement of Defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the Written Statement of Defence.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Granting Leave
Under Order 36 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a defendant served with summons under summary procedure must obtain leave from court to appear and defend. Leave must be granted where the applicant shows by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bonafide triable issue of fact or law. A triable issue is one capable of being resolved through legal trial, arising when a material proposition of law or fact is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Scope of Summary Procedure — When Inappropriate
Summary procedure is resorted to in clear and straightforward cases where the demand is liquidated and there are no issues for determination by the court except for the grant of the claim. Where evidence raises questions requiring the court's further investigation and determination, the matter falls outside the ambit of Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the defendant must be granted leave to defend.
Banking & Finance — Loan Recovery — Write-Off of Loans — Effect on Borrower's Liability
A loan being written off does not absolve the borrower's liability to repay. The credit and debit transactions involved in writing off bad loans is a common housekeeping practice and regulatory obligation for banks to provision for non-performing loans, but does not discharge the borrower from the obligation to repay.
Contract Law — Loan Agreements — Insurance of Loans — Triable Issues
Where a loan agreement provides for insurance and the lender charges insurance fees to the borrower but disputes that insurance was taken out, this raises triable issues of whether the loan was insured, whether the lender breached the agreement by not taking out insurance while charging fees, and whether the borrower remains indebted where the loan was written off after an insured event allegedly occurred.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (12)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Begumisa George v East African Development Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 451 of 2010)
  • Geoffrey Gatete & Another v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 07 of 2005)
  • Great Lakes Coffee Company Ltd and Others v KCB Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 701 of 2024)
  • Illumina (U) Limited v Mukama Alex (Miscellaneous Application No. 2251 of 2023)
  • Ecobank Uganda Ltd v Victor Construction Works Ltd (High Court Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2017)
  • Samuel Black t/a SB Coaches v DFCU Bank (High Court Civil Suit No. 416 of 2009)
  • Jamil Ssenyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (High Court Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
  • Bhaker Kotecha v Adam Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd v Bombay Garage Ltd [1958] EA 741
  • Churanjilal & Co. v A.H Adam (1950) 17 EACA 92

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rapa Thomson Ricky v Ecobank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1673 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 363 (7 October 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.