Wakilii

Saracen (U) Limited v Farsk Mat Restaurant Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2513 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 335 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment on admission entered in summary suit for breach of contract
Decision
Application for review dismissed; judgment on admission in HCCS No. 704 of 2019 stands.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 to review and set aside a judgment on admission was dismissed. The court held that counsel's oral confirmatory statements in open court — admitting the existence of a contract, the services rendered, the amount owed, and the indebtedness — constituted clear and unambiguous admissions sufficient to support judgment on admission under Order 13 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. No error apparent on the face of the record was established. A party's confirmatory statements made through counsel bind the party and cannot later be characterised as mere acknowledgment of contract existence where they plainly admitted liability.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; judgment on admission in HCCS No. 704 of 2019 stands.

Facts

Saracen (U) Limited contracted Farsk Mat Restaurant Limited to provide catering and messing services to its security camps. By March 2016, the applicant had paid USD $134,345 but an outstanding balance remained. The respondent filed a summary suit (HCCS No. 704 of 2019) claiming USD $121,345. The applicant was granted conditional leave to appear and defend. During proceedings on 16 October 2023, the applicant's counsel, in response to direct questions from court, confirmed the existence of the contract, that services were rendered, and that the amount claimed was not disputed. The court entered judgment on admission for USD $125,345. The applicant then applied for review, arguing that the confirmatory statements did not amount to admission of liability and that judgment was entered in error. The respondent opposed, stating that the admissions were clear and unambiguous.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises grounds for review of the judgment on admission in HCCS No. 704 of 2019.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Judgment on Admission — Order 13 Rule 6 — Oral Admissions by Counsel
Under Order 13 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a court may enter judgment on admission where a party, through counsel, makes clear and unambiguous oral admissions in open court. Confirmatory statements by counsel in response to direct questions from the court constitute admissions that bind the party. Where counsel admits the existence of a contract, the rendering of services, and the amount owed, such admissions are sufficient to support judgment on admission without further trial.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgment — Section 82 Civil Procedure Act & Order 46 CPR — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error apparent on the face of the record must be an evident error that does not require extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. It must be so manifest and clear that no court would permit such error to remain on record. A party seeking review must demonstrate that the error is plain and obvious. Where a court enters judgment on clear oral admissions made by counsel, and no error in the court's application of the law is shown, there is no error apparent on the face of the record justifying review.
Evidence — Admissions — Section 17(1) Evidence Act — Statements by Counsel
Under Section 17(1) of the Evidence Act, statements made by an agent of a party whom the court regards as expressly or impliedly authorised to make them are admissions. Counsel appearing for a party is impliedly authorised to make statements on the party's behalf. Confirmatory statements made by counsel in court proceedings bind the party as admissions and cannot later be disavowed on the basis that they were not intended as admissions of liability.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Evasive Denials — Deemed Admissions
A defendant must deal specifically with every allegation of fact in the plaint. Where a defendant makes evasive denials without proof of payment or substantive defence, and fails to deny facts specifically or by necessary implication, every allegation of fact in the plaint not specifically denied is taken to be admitted. Mere allegations of fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, without supporting evidence, do not constitute a triable defence where the primary obligation under the contract is not disputed.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • Uganda Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd v Katon Manufacturers Ltd & 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 4 of 2022)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • Nevia Company Ltd v Biersdorf AG (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2014)
  • Choitram v Nazari [1976-1985] EA 53
  • Juliet Kalema v William Kalema (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2003)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Saracen (U) Limited v Farsk Mat Restaurant Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2513 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 335 (6 November 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.