Rev. Canon Enid Hende Ankundda v Hello Opportunities Enterprises Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 960 of 2024)

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.

Holding

The court dismissed the applicant's application for leave to defend due to failure to appear at two scheduled hearings, exercising discretion under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Judgment was entered for the respondent for the full claim of UGX 194,760,000 as a liquidated demand under a written loan agreement, being proper for summary procedure. Interest at 20% per annum was awarded from the date of filing suit until payment in full.

Outcome

Application dismissed for failure to prosecute; judgment entered for respondent in underlying summary suit

Facts

The respondent filed a summary suit seeking recovery of UGX 194,760,000 arising from two loan facilities advanced to the late Ida May Kwesiga in September 2017. The first loan of UGX 113,400,000 was to be repaid within two months, and a top-up of UGX 81,360,000 within one month. Both loans were guaranteed by the applicant. The first loan was secured by a motor vehicle which was subsequently taken by another creditor. The top-up was secured by post-dated cheques which bounced. The borrower died without repaying the loans. The applicant, as guarantor, filed an application for leave to appear and defend the summary suit. The court scheduled hearings on 3rd July 2025 and 9th July 2025, issuing hearing notices and circulating cause lists, but the applicant failed to appear on both occasions despite being represented by counsel who had requested the hearing dates.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant's failure to appear at scheduled hearings warranted dismissal of the application under Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. Whether the respondent's claim was proper for summary procedure under Order 36 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
3. What interest rate should be applied to the decretal amount.

Orders

• Miscellaneous Application No. 0960 of 2024 is dismissed in accordance with Order 17 rule 4 of The Civil Procedure Rules.
• Judgment is entered for the respondent/plaintiff for the decretal amount of UGX 194,760,000 under Civil Suit No. 0433 of 2024.
• Interest at a rate of 20% per annum on the decretal amount from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
• Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 rules 3 & 4
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 17 rule 4
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 rule 2(a)
• Civil Procedure Rules s.26(2)

Cases cited (1)

• Sterling Travel and Tour Services Ltd v Millennium Travel Tours Services Ltd (HCMA No. 116 of 2013)

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.

• Mayinja v Bahwire (misc. Application. no.960 2024)

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