Wakilii

Roko Construction Ltd v Babirye Construction Services (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 1244 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 82 · 2021 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appear and defend summary suit under Order 36 CPR
Decision
Applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the 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

Held that the applicant disclosed bonafide triable issues of fact and law sufficient to warrant leave to appear and defend. The threshold for granting leave does not require proof of a good defense on the merits, only that there are triable issues. The applicant raised disputes about whether it was indebted to the claimed amount, whether the oral contract was unenforceable under the Contracts Act, and whether the respondent was entitled to contractual interest. These matters raised sufficient triable issues to warrant defence. Leave granted.

Outcome

Applicant granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the summary suit

Facts

The respondent commenced Civil Suit No. 1046 of 2020 under summary procedure claiming UGX 123,475,000 from the applicant for hire of machinery. The applicant applied for leave to appear and defend, denying the debt and asserting that the oral contract exceeded the statutory amount under the Contracts Act and was therefore unenforceable. The applicant also contended that the machinery hired was in poor mechanical condition, that the amounts invoiced were exaggerated, and that the respondent was not entitled to the interest claimed. The applicant further challenged the validity of the affidavit supporting the plaint, alleging it was commissioned by a person not duly gazetted as a Commissioner for Oaths.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfies the conditions for grant of leave to appear and defend a summary suit under Order 36 CPR

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • The applicant to file its written statement of defence within fifteen days from the date hereof.
  • The applicant to serve the respondent/plaintiff as prescribed by law.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Grant of Leave
Before leave to appear and defend under Order 36 CPR is granted, the applicant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bonafide triable issue of fact or law. The applicant need not show a good defense on the merits, but must satisfy the court that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Interest Claims — Whether Interest Not Contractually Agreed Raises Triable Issue
A claim for interest under Order 36 summary procedure should not include interest except where an agreement on interest is included in the contract. Where interest claimed is not contractual but sought from the date of filing of suit or judgment, it is at the discretion of the court and does not bar the summary procedure, as it does not accrue on the contract itself.
Contract Law — Oral Contracts — Writing Requirement — Effect of Part Performance
Under the Contracts Act 2010 section 10(5), a contract with a subject matter exceeding twenty-five currency points must be in writing. However, the writing requirement may be satisfied by any signed document that reasonably identifies the subject matter, indicates a contract exists, and states the material terms with reasonable certainty, including receipts or informal letters. Further, part performance of an oral contract makes it enforceable in equity.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (10)

  • Benon Tamusange & Timothy Justin Rover Mathew v Exim Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1213 of 2016)
  • Makula Interglobal Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda (HCCS No. 950 of 1985)
  • Karangwa Joseph v Kulaniu Willy (Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2016)
  • Begumisa George v East African Development Bank (HCMA No. 451 of 2010)
  • Kotecha v Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Post Bank (U) Ltd v Abdul Kasozi (SCCA No. 08 of 2015)
  • Jubilee Insurance Co Ltd v Fifi Transporters Ltd (HCMA No. 0211 of 2008)
  • Musoke Kitenda v Roko Construction Limited (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1240 of 2020)
  • Britain v Rossiter (1879) 11 QBD 123
  • Stanley Beinababo v Abaho Tumushabe (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1997)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Roko Construction Ltd v Babirye Construction Services (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 1244 of 2020) [2021] UGCommC 82 (30 April 2021)
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.