Wakilii

Roko Construction Ltd v Ssempijja (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 38 of 2019)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 66 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appear and defend arising from summary suit
Decision
Application dismissed; respondent entitled to proceed with 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

An application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit will be dismissed where the defendant fails to show a bonafide triable issue. The court found that payments made within the limitation period reset the limitation clock under section 22(4) of the Limitation Act. Further, part performance of an oral contract makes it enforceable in equity notwithstanding the requirement for writing under section 10(5) of the Contracts Act. The applicant's defences were bare denials without supporting evidence.

Outcome

Application dismissed; respondent entitled to proceed with summary suit

Facts

The respondent filed a summary suit claiming UGX 581,128,142 for aggregate stones supplied to the applicant between January 2013 and August 2020. The applicant sought leave to appear and defend, arguing the oral contract exceeded the statutory limit requiring writing, the suit was barred by limitation, and the invoices were unsupported. The respondent contended that payments were made up to December 2020, resetting the limitation period, and that the contract was partly performed. The applicant provided no evidence of payment receipts or alternative documentation to rebut the respondent's invoices.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfies the conditions for the grant of orders for leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 1100 of 2020.
  2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation under the Limitation Act.
  3. Whether the oral contract exceeding twenty-five currency points is enforceable in the absence of a written agreement.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appear and defend denied and dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Suit — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Grant
For leave to appear and defend to be granted, the applicant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bonafide triable issue of fact or law, and the court shall not enter upon the trial of the issues at this interlocutory stage.
Statutory Interpretation — Limitation Act — Acknowledgement or Payment — Effect on Limitation Period
Under section 22(4) of the Limitation Act, where a person liable for a debt makes any payment in respect of the claim, the right to recover shall be deemed to have accrued on the date of the last payment, thereby resetting the limitation period.
Contract Law — Part Performance — Enforceability of Oral Contract
Part performance of an oral contract makes it enforceable in equity even if the contract exceeds twenty-five currency points and is not evidenced in writing, provided one party takes visible acts in reliance on the contract such that it would be inequitable to allow the other party to repudiate.
Contract Law — Contracts Act — Writing Requirement — Informal Documentation
The writing requirement under section 10(5) of the Contracts Act does not require a formal written contract but can be satisfied by any signed writing that reasonably identifies the subject matter, indicates a contract exists, and states the material terms with reasonable certainty, including receipts or informal letters.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suit — Sham Defence — Bare Denials
Leave to appear and defend will not be granted where the grounds advanced are mere allegations, sweeping statements, or bare denials unsupported by evidence, as such defences are a sham incapable of constituting a plausible defence.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (11)

  • 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 [1985] HCB 65
  • Musoke Kitenda v Roko Construction Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1240 of 2020)
  • Sembule Investments Limited v Uganda Baati Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 664 of 2009)
  • Home & Overseas Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Mentor Insurance (UK) In Liquidation (1990) WLR
  • Iqa v Makerere University [1972] EA 65
  • Kotecha v Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • F.X. Miramago v Attorney General [1979] HCB 24
  • Face Technologies (PTY) Limited v Attorney General & Anor (Civil Suit No. 248 of 2008)
  • Corporate Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Nyali Beach Hotel Ltd [1995-1998] EA
  • Abubaker Kato Kasule v Tomson Muhwezi [1992-1993] HCB 212

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Roko Construction Ltd v Ssempijja (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 38 of 2019) [2021] UGCommC 66 (3 September 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.