Wakilii

Rwenzori Entertainment Association and Others v Microfinance Support Centre Limited (Miscellaneous Application 12 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 623 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit arising from Civil Suit No. 001 of 2024
Decision
Application for leave to appear and defend dismissed

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 only the 2nd applicant filed an affidavit seeking leave to defend, causing the application to fail for the remaining applicants. The 2nd applicant's affidavit asserted joint defences based on forgery and non-indebtedness but relied on hearsay without supporting affidavits from co-applicants. No bona fide triable issue was established. The proposed joint written statement of defence could not stand without all applicants being on record. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for leave to appear and defend dismissed

Facts

The applicants sought leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 001 of 2024, a summary suit brought by Microfinance Support Centre Limited for recovery of a loan. The 1st applicant allegedly took a loan of UGX 212,577,331.59 on 11 June 2019 with the 3rd to 6th applicants as guarantors. Only the 2nd applicant filed an affidavit in support, claiming the loan agreement was a forgery and that the applicants were not indebted to the respondent. The respondent countered that the loan was disbursed, guarantors willfully committed the 1st applicant, and no triable issues existed. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the 2nd applicant lacked written authority to act on behalf of co-applicants under Order 1 Rule 12 CPR.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in support of the application is defective for lack of written authority under Order 1 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the applicants have shown good cause and a triable defence sufficient to be granted leave to appear and defend the summary suit.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Defend — Requirement to Show Good Cause and Triable Defence
In applications for leave to appear and defend a summary suit, the defendant must satisfy the court that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law such that the plaintiff would not be entitled to summary judgment; the defendant need not show a good defence on the merits but must demonstrate good cause in the form of a triable defence.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Defend — Failure to File Supporting Affidavit
Where multiple applicants jointly seek leave to appear and defend a summary suit but only one files an affidavit in support, the application automatically fails as to those applicants who filed no affidavit.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Joint Defence Based on Hearsay Without Co-Applicants on Record
A proposed joint written statement of defence cannot stand where the affidavit in support is sworn by one applicant on behalf of co-applicants who have not filed supporting affidavits; assertions of joint defences based on hearsay without evidence from co-applicants do not establish a triable issue.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Order 1 Rule 12 — Written Authority Not Required Where Affiant Seeks Relief in Own Right
Where an affidavit states that the deponent swears it in support of her own application for leave to appear and defend, written authority from co-applicants under Order 1 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules is not required because the deponent is acting in her own right, not on behalf of others.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Makula Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Geoffrey Gatete and Another v William Kyobe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rwenzori Entertainment Association and Others v Microfinance Support Centre Limited (Miscellaneous Application 12 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 623 (18 June 20
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.