Wakilii

Sinco Medical Supplies Limited v Surgimed Medical Supplies Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2309 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 81 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend arising from summary suit for recovery of debt
Decision
Application dismissed; judgment entered for respondent for debt recovery

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 failed to raise triable issues of law or fact to warrant leave to appear and defend. The applicant admitted the debt and failed to adduce evidence of the alleged credit arrangement or complaints about substandard goods. Under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, retention of goods without timely rejection constitutes acceptance. Application dismissed and judgment entered for the respondent for the outstanding balance of UGX 64,672,800 plus costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed; judgment entered for respondent for debt recovery

Facts

Between 2021 and 2023, the respondent supplied medical sundries and equipment to the applicant worth UGX 65,672,800. The applicant made one partial payment of UGX 1,000,000, leaving an outstanding balance of UGX 64,672,800. On 17 May 2023, the applicant's Managing Director signed a commitment letter acknowledging the debt and undertaking to issue seven postdated cheques for instalment payments. Despite several follow-ups and formal demand, the applicant failed to clear the outstanding balance. The respondent instituted a summary suit for recovery. The applicant sought leave to appear and defend, contending that the parties had a credit arrangement whereby payment would be made after selling the goods, and that the supplied goods were substandard and of wrong description. The applicant admitted being indebted but claimed the unsold goods equivalent to the outstanding balance remained in stock.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 1020 of 2025?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application for leave to appear and defend dismissed.
  • Judgment entered for the Respondent/Plaintiff against the Applicant/Defendant.
  • The Applicant/Defendant shall pay the Respondent/Plaintiff UGX 64,672,800 being the outstanding balance for the supplied goods.
  • Costs of this application and the suit awarded to the Respondent/Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Grant
For leave to appear and defend under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules to be granted, an applicant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law. The defence raised must not be a sham or be averred in a manner that appears to be needlessly bald, vague or sketchy.
Contract Law — Sale of Goods — Acceptance of Goods — Retention Without Rejection
Under section 43(1) of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, if a buyer retains goods after the lapse of a reasonable time without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them, the buyer is taken to have accepted the goods and cannot later reject them. The buyer becomes responsible for paying the contract price.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Purpose and Application
Summary procedure is resorted to in clear and straightforward cases where the demand is liquidated and there are no issues for determination by the court except for the grant of the claim. It provides a quick way for a plaintiff who demands a liquidated sum to obtain judgment where there is no evident defence.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (8)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Fuel Stick Uganda Limited v Nile Breweries Limited (Civil Suit No. 766 of 2022)
  • Diamond Glass Mart Limited & Another v Haji Moses Kigongo and Another (Civil Suit No. 1061 of 2020)
  • Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd v Bombay Garage Ltd [1958] EA 741
  • Post Bank (U) Limited v Abdu Ssozi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2015)
  • Ndibazza Naima v Acacia Finance Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1144 of 2014)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sinco Medical Supplies Limited v Surgimed Medical Supplies Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2309 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 81 (9 March 2026)
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.