Wakilii

Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Akata & Bow Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 958 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 293 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judgment on admission arising from civil suit for breach of contract and debt recovery
Decision
Application for judgment on admission dismissed; main suit to proceed

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 High Court dismissed an application for judgment on admission brought by Stanbic Bank against Akata & Bow Limited. The bank sought judgment for UGX 349,626,791 based on alleged admissions in the defendant's written statement of defence. The court held that while the defendant admitted certain factual paragraphs of the plaint concerning the loan facility agreement and its terms, these admissions did not constitute a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous, and positive admission of indebtedness in the specific sum claimed. The application was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Outcome

Application for judgment on admission dismissed; main suit to proceed

Facts

Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited and Akata & Bow Limited entered into a six-month invoice discounting facility agreement on 27 April 2023 for UGX 300,000,000. The facility was secured by a Deed of Assignment of contract proceeds due from Rwenzori Agro Processing Limited (the 2nd defendant) to Akata & Bow. The 1st defendant submitted confirmed invoices issued to the 2nd defendant totalling approximately UGX 490 million. The 2nd defendant confirmed it would settle outstanding invoices within 90 days through a designated account. The bank disbursed UGX 300,000,000 on 3 May 2023. However, the 2nd defendant made only a single deposit of UGX 20,000,000 on 30 June 2023. The 1st defendant defaulted, prompting the bank to file Civil Suit No. 382 of 2024 claiming UGX 349,626,971. In its written statement of defence filed 26 April 2024, the 1st defendant admitted paragraphs 5.1 through 5.8 of the plaint. The bank then brought this application for judgment on admission. The respondents were served but filed no affidavit in reply.

Issues

  1. Whether the application meets the criteria for a judgment on admission?
  2. What remedies are available?

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Judgment on Admission — Requirements for Admission
An admission sufficient to ground judgment on admission under Order 13 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be clear, unequivocal, unambiguous, and positive. An admission of factual background circumstances does not necessarily constitute an admission of the legal consequence or quantum of indebtedness claimed.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Effect of Failure to Reply
Where an applicant supports an application by affidavit and the respondent does not reply by affidavit or otherwise, and the supporting evidence is credible in itself, the facts stand as unchallenged. However, this principle does not apply where the admission relied upon is not sufficiently clear and unequivocal to support the specific relief sought.
Civil Procedure — Judgment on Admission — Distinction Between Factual Admission and Admission of Liability
Admission of factual paragraphs describing the terms of a loan facility agreement, the provision of security, and the circumstances of disbursement does not amount to an admission of indebtedness in a specific sum where the defendant has not expressly acknowledged owing that precise amount.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Akata & Bow Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 958 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 293 (16 June 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.