Wakilii

Seeta General Stores Limited v Crown Beverages Limited (Civil Suit No. 1218 of 2024; Miscellaneous Application No. 2300 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 165 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit arising from Civil Suit No. 1218 of 2024
Decision
Application dismissed; judgment entered for the Respondent in the sum of UGX 1,499,098,361 with interest at 21% per annum from judgment until payment in full

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 struck out the application for leave to appear and defend on the ground that it was filed out of time. The applicant filed the application on 29 October 2024, three days after the expiry of the statutory 10-day period from service of summons on 16 October 2024. Without prejudice to this finding, the court also held on the merits that the applicant failed to demonstrate a triable defence, having admitted indebtedness in a letter dated 11 April 2023. The court entered judgment for the respondent in the sum of UGX 1,499,098,361 with interest at 21% per annum.

Outcome

Application dismissed; judgment entered for the Respondent in the sum of UGX 1,499,098,361 with interest at 21% per annum from judgment until payment in full

Facts

The respondent filed a summary suit claiming UGX 1,499,098,361 from the applicant arising from a distributorship agreement. The respondent extracted and served summons on 16 October 2024 requiring the applicant to apply for leave to defend within 10 days. The applicant filed the application for leave to appear and defend on 29 October 2024, three days after the statutory deadline. The applicant denied indebtedness and alleged that the respondent retained security cheques despite cash payments, withheld monies, and failed to conduct proper reconciliation. The respondent produced a letter dated 11 April 2023 authored by the applicant's director acknowledging outstanding liability of UGX 1,568,094,393. The respondent also showed that Victoria Business Consult conducted a joint reconciliation in 2022 at the applicant's request, establishing debt of UGX 1,804,499,494, which after subsequent reconciliation and credits totalling UGX 64,748,300 resulted in the claimed sum. The applicant failed to file submissions or appear at the scheduled hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has proven sufficient grounds to warrant a grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend?
  2. Whether the application was filed within the statutory timeline prescribed by Order 36 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules?
  3. Whether the Applicant brought this application in good faith?

Orders

  • Application struck off for being filed out of time.
  • Plaintiff/Respondent awarded a decree in Civil Suit No. 1218 of 2024 for the sum of UGX 1,499,098,361.
  • Interest at 21% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Respondent.
  • Costs of this application awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Summary Suits — Time Limits for Filing Application for Leave to Defend
An application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit must be filed within 10 days from the date of service of summons as prescribed by Order 36 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Form 4. Statutory time provisions are matters of substantive law and must be strictly complied with. An application filed outside the statutory period without leave to file out of time is null and void.
Preliminary Objections — Nature and Requirements
A preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded or arises by clear implication out of pleadings, and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. It raises a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion.
Summary Suits — Threshold for Grant of Leave to Defend
For a defendant to be granted leave to appear and defend a summary suit, the defendant must show that he has a good defence on the merits, or that there is a real dispute as to the amount claimed which requires taking an account to determine, or any other circumstances showing reasonable grounds of a bona fide defence. A general denial of indebtedness is not itself a valid defence.
Summary Suits — Admission of Indebtedness as Bar to Leave to Defend
Where a defendant in a summary suit has previously admitted indebtedness in writing, such admission rebuts any subsequent denial of indebtedness and demonstrates the absence of a triable defence. The defendant's failure to rebut evidence of such admission by filing submissions or appearing at the hearing leaves the admission uncontested.
Summary Suits — Practice and Procedure — Annexing Draft Defence
It is good practice for an applicant seeking leave to appear and defend in a summary suit to annex a draft of the intended written statement of defence to the notice of motion. This helps the court identify and establish the defence put forward and demonstrates that the applicant is serious and not merely abusing the court process.
Summary Suits — Abuse of Process and Bad Faith
An application for leave to defend may be dismissed where the applicant's conduct demonstrates bad faith and abuse of court process, including failure to serve the respondent, failure to attach a draft defence, failure to pursue fixing for hearing, failure to appear in court, and failure to file submissions. Such conduct indicates an intention to frustrate the respondent rather than to genuinely defend the suit.
Summary Suits — Consequence of Refusal of Leave to Defend
Where after hearing an application by a defendant for leave to appear and defend a summary suit the court refuses to grant such leave, the plaintiff is entitled as against the defendant to a decree for the amount claimed in the plaint together with interest and costs.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (15)

  • China Railway No.3 Engineering Group Company Limited v Segken Services Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 161 of 2020)
  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] 1 EA 696
  • Pontrilas Investments Ltd v Central Bank of Kenya and Another (Reference No. 8 of 2017)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2000)
  • Post Bank (U) Ltd v Abdul Ssozi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2015)
  • Zola & Another v Ralli Brothers Ltd & Another [1969] EA 691
  • Kotecha v Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Saw V Hakim 5 TLR 72
  • Ray v Barker 4 Ex DI 279
  • Churanjilal & Co v A. H. Adam (1950) 17 EACA 92
  • Hasmani v Banque du Congo Belge (1938) 5 EACA 89
  • Eco Bank Uganda Limited v Kalson's Agrovet Concern Ltd & Anor (High Court Civil Suit No. 573 of 2016)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Mukoome Agencies [1982] HCB 22
  • Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 873

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Seeta General Stores Limited v Crown Beverages Limited (Civil Suit No. 1218 of 2024; Miscellaneous Application No. 2300 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 165 (12 May 2025)
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.