Wakilii

Sombha Solutions Store Limited v The Bandwidth and Cloud Services Group Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1415 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 201 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for unconditional leave to defend summary suit arising from debt claim
Decision
Application struck out; judgment entered for respondent in underlying 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

Application for leave to defend a summary suit struck out as time barred. The applicant filed the application three days outside the ten-day period prescribed under Order 36 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court rejected the applicant's request for validation made only in written submissions, noting that no affidavit evidence supported the claim of counsel negligence and the Notice of Motion did not seek extension of time. Judgment entered for the respondent for the liquidated sum claimed.

Outcome

Application struck out; judgment entered for respondent in underlying summary suit

Facts

The respondent filed a summary suit seeking to recover US$13,000 arising from a telecommunications services agreement executed on 28 November 2018. The respondent alleged the applicant defaulted on payment. Summons were issued on 16 November 2022 and served on the applicant on 20 September 2022. The applicant was required to file an application for leave to defend within ten days, by 30 September 2022. The applicant filed the application on 3 October 2022, three days late. The applicant sought unconditional leave to defend, asserting the service was unsatisfactory and amounts needed reconciliation. In submissions, counsel attributed the late filing to negligence of instructed counsel and sought validation, but this was not supported by affidavit evidence and the Notice of Motion did not seek extension of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for leave to defend was time barred.

Orders

  • Application struck out as filed out of time.
  • Judgment entered for the Respondent in HCCS 796 of 2022 for the liquidated sum of US$13,000 with interest at court rate of 6% per annum from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Time Limits for Leave to Defend
An application for leave to defend a summary suit must be filed within the period fixed by the summons served on the defendant as prescribed under Order 36 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and failure to do so renders the application time barred.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Requirements for Seeking Validation
Where an application is filed out of time, a party seeking validation or extension of time must include such relief in the Notice of Motion and support it with proper affidavit evidence; a request made only in written submissions without corresponding prayers in the Notice of Motion is unfounded and bad in law.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Evidence from the Bar
Assertions made in written submissions that are not supported by affidavit evidence amount to evidence from the bar and are untenable.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Default Judgment
Under Order 36 rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, where a defendant fails to file an application for leave to defend within the prescribed period, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for an amount not exceeding the sum claimed in the plaint, together with interest and costs.

Legislation cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sombha Solutions Store Limited v The Bandwidth and Cloud Services Group Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1415 of 2022) [2022] UGCommC 201 (30 December 2022)
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.