Wakilii

Revolt Finance Limited v Twinomuhwezi & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1823 of 2022)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 271 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application to strike out defence as frivolous and vexatious and for judgment on liquidated demand arising from Civil Suit No. 354 of 2021
Decision
Applicant's application to strike out the respondents' written statement of defence dismissed; main suit to proceed to trial on the merits

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 held that where a defence raises triable issues—namely whether loan sums were disbursed, whether the transaction is illegal under the Tier 4 Microfinance Institutions and Money Lenders Act, and whether it was unjust—such defence cannot be struck out as frivolous or vexatious at the interlocutory stage. Contradictions in the pleadings must be resolved through evidence. The parol evidence rule does not bar evidence of circumstances surrounding execution of an acknowledgement, including fraud or misrepresentation. The application to strike out the defence was dismissed with costs in cause.

Outcome

Applicant's application to strike out the respondents' written statement of defence dismissed; main suit to proceed to trial on the merits

Facts

The applicant filed suit for recovery of USD 426,000 allegedly advanced as a loan. The respondents filed a joint written statement of defence asserting they did not receive the loan, that the deed founding the claim is illegal and unenforceable as the applicant lacks a money lending licence under the Tier 4 Microfinance Institutions and Money Lenders Act 2016, and that the transaction should be re-opened as harsh and unconscionable. The applicant brought an interlocutory application seeking to strike out the defence as frivolous, vexatious, disclosing no reasonable answer, barred by the parol evidence rule, and constituting abuse of process, and seeking summary judgment on admission. The first respondent swore an affidavit in reply contending he was in South Africa when the deed was allegedly signed and that the second respondent's signature is not hers. The applicant objected that the first respondent lacked written authority to depone on behalf of co-respondents.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents' written statement of defence is frivolous and vexatious.
  2. Whether the respondents' written statement of defence discloses a reasonable answer to the applicant's claim.
  3. Whether the respondents' written statement of defence is barred by section 91 of the Evidence Act.
  4. Whether the filing of the defence constitutes an abuse of court process.
  5. Whether the affidavit in reply deponed by the first respondent is competent absent written authority from the other respondents.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs in cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Striking Out Pleadings — Test for Frivolous and Vexatious Defence
A defence is frivolous or vexatious where it has no serious purpose or value, is trivial or meritless on its face, or is pursued to harass or annoy. However, where a defence on the face of the pleadings raises bona fide triable issues warranting adjudication, it cannot be struck out as frivolous even if it contains inconsistencies that ought to be resolved through evidence.
Preliminary Objections — Nature and Limitations
A preliminary objection raises a pure point of law based on assumed facts as pleaded by both parties. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if judicial discretion is required. Matters requiring evidence cannot be entertained as preliminary objections but must be resolved in the main suit.
Affidavits — Authority to Depone on Behalf of Co-Parties
Order 1 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires written authority for one party to appear, plead or act for another, does not govern the adduction of evidence by way of affidavit. A party may adduce evidence through any person able to testify from their own knowledge or belief, without requiring written authority from co-parties, provided the party presenting the witness has consented to that person leading evidence in support of its case.
Parol Evidence Rule — Scope and Exceptions
Section 91 of the Evidence Act bars adducement of oral evidence of terms contrary to those in a written agreement, but does not prohibit adducement of evidence of circumstances before, during or after execution of the agreement. Parties to agreements secured by duress, misrepresentation, fraud or undue influence may adduce such evidence to avoid the agreement. A defence contending that sums represented as disbursed in an acknowledgement were not in fact disbursed, and that the document is inaccurate or fraudulent, is not barred by the parol evidence rule.
Abuse of Process — Test
Abuse of court process occurs when a party uses judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of an opponent and the efficient administration of justice. It applies to proceedings wanting in bona fides and which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. Where a defence on the face of pleadings prima facie raises triable issues, its filing does not constitute abuse of process.

Legislation cited (23)

Cases cited (19)

  • Yaya Farajallah v Obur Ronald and Others (High Court Civil Appeal No. 81 of 2016)
  • Lweza Clays and Another v Tropical Bank and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2018)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Ssekabira Herbert v Ssuna Mulema and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 186 of 2022)
  • Charles Sserunjogi v Tony Nkuubi (High Court Originating Summons No. 7 of 2019)
  • Yutta Luda Musoke v Greenland Bank (High Court Civil Suit No. 506 of 2001)
  • Lam Lagoro v Muni University (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2016)
  • Allan Makula v First Finance Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 957 of 2022)
  • Odongokara and Others v Kamuhanda and Another (1968) EA 210
  • Attorney General of Uganda v Networth Consult Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1830 of 2022)
  • John Garuga Musinguzi and Another v Dr. Chris Baryomunsi and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 817 of 2016)
  • Electromaxx v Prime Fuels Kenya Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1860 of 2022)
  • Meera Investments and Others v Nelson Lukozi (Miscellaneous Application No. 399 of 2022)
  • King's College Budo Staff Savings Scheme Limited v Zaverio Samula and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 26 of 2020)
  • Deox Tibeigana v Vijay Reddy (Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2019)
  • Uganda Land Commission and Another v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2014)
  • Andrew Akol v Noah Onzivua (High Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2014)
  • Clessy Bakira v Jomo Robert Kashaija and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 894 of 2019)
  • Abbas Lokhadwhala v Hippo Investments Limited and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 183 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Revolt Finance Limited v Twinomuhwezi & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1823 of 2022) [2024] UGCommC 271 (14 August 2024)
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.