Wakilii

Ssenyonjo v Bunjo (Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)

High Court · [2013] UGHCCD 127 · 2013 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judgment on admission under Order 13 r.6 CPR in civil suit for recovery of purchase price
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff on admission for UGX 110,000,000; general damages and costs to be addressed separately

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 8 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.

Good law Followed in 8 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 38 citing cases on record, 31 in the most recent three data years. 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

Held that where a defendant materially admits all facts in a scheduling memorandum that correspond to the allegations in the specially endorsed plaint, judgment on admission under Order 13 r.6 CPR is properly entered without trial. Admission must be explicit and unambiguous. Once material facts are admitted, they need not be proved. Parties are bound by their pleadings and agreed facts in scheduling memoranda. Judgment entered for the plaintiff for UGX 110,000,000.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff on admission for UGX 110,000,000; general damages and costs to be addressed separately

Facts

The plaintiff and defendant entered into a land sale agreement on 1 April 2009 for land in Kyadondo Block 216 Plot 2016 for UGX 230,000,000. The defendant paid UGX 120,000,000 in cash and was to transfer land in Kyadondo Block 255 Plot 1138 as part consideration. The defendant could not deliver this land due to third-party encumbrances. On 11 April 2010, the parties executed an addendum whereby the defendant agreed to provide alternative land or pay the balance of UGX 110,000,000 by 8 November 2010. Neither alternative land nor payment was provided. The plaintiff sued for recovery of UGX 110,000,000. Both parties signed a joint scheduling memorandum admitting these facts. The plaintiff's counsel applied for judgment on admission under Order 13 r.6 CPR.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to judgment on admission under Order 13 r.6 CPR.
  2. Whether the defendant has materially admitted all facts alleged by the plaintiff in the specially endorsed plaint.

Orders

  • Judgment on admission entered for the plaintiff in the sum of UGX 110,000,000.
  • Plaintiff to address the court on the issue of general damages and costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Judgment on Admission — Requirements for Entry of Judgment
Judgment on admission under Order 13 r.6 CPR may be entered where a party has made an admission of facts, either on the pleadings or otherwise, that is explicit, clear, unambiguous, and not open to doubt.
Civil Procedure — Scheduling Conference — Binding Effect of Agreed Facts
The purpose of scheduling conference is to sort out issues over which parties are agreed so that there is no litigation over them thereafter. Facts agreed in a joint scheduling memorandum that materially correspond to the plaintiff's pleaded claim constitute admissions for purposes of judgment under Order 13 r.6 CPR.
Civil Procedure — Issues — Triable Issues Require Dispute Between Parties
Under Order 15 r.1 CPR, issues only arise when a material proposition of law or fact is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Where parties agree on all material facts, no triable issue exists.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (8)

  • John Peter Nazareth v Barclays Bank International Ltd (EACA 39 of 1976)
  • African Insurance Co v Uganda Airlines [1985] HCB 53
  • Mohamed B.M. Dhanji v Lulu & Co [1960] EA 541
  • Multi Holdings v Uganda Commercial Bank [1972] HCB 234
  • Tororo Cement Co Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (SCCA No. 2 of 2001)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Uganda Cros Ltd (SCCA No. 4 of 2004)
  • Struggle (U) Ltd v Pan African Insurance Co Ltd (1990) KALR 46
  • Jani Properties Ltd v Dar Es Salaam City Council [1966] EA 281

Cases citing this judgment (30)

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.

Ssenyonjo v Bunjo (Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012) [2013] UGHCCD 127 (24 September 2013)
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.