Wakilii

Sure Telecom Uganda Limited v ZTE Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 99 of 2017)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 66 · 2017 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to defend summary suit arising from Civil Suit No. 992 of 2016
Decision
Application dismissed; judgment entered for plaintiff for US$749,503 with costs

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 dismissed the application for leave to defend a summary suit where the applicant's affidavit failed to specify whether the defence went to the whole or part of the plaintiff's claim as required by Order 36 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The affidavit merely stated that documents were being verified and that the applicant had a defence, without disclosing the substance of that defence or identifying which claims were contested. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff.

Outcome

Application dismissed; judgment entered for plaintiff for US$749,503 with costs

Facts

ZTE Uganda Limited sued Sure Telecom Uganda Limited for US$749,503 arising from three unpaid purchase orders for telecommunications services. The plaintiff claimed Sure Telecom issued purchase orders in 2011, 2014, and 2016 for installation services, core network support, and other services totalling US$958,697, of which only US$171,933 was paid. Sure Telecom signed confirmations of account receivables acknowledging the debt. Sure Telecom applied for leave to defend, stating it was verifying the authenticity of the plaintiff's claims and documents. The application was supported by an affidavit from the company secretary stating the defendant did not owe the sums claimed and was in the process of verification.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's affidavit in support of the application for leave to defend complied with Order 36 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the applicant disclosed a triable defence to the respondent's claim.
  3. Whether the applicant's defence went to the whole or part of the plaintiff's claim.

Orders

  • Application for leave to defend dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff/respondent for US$749,503.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff/respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Defend — Requirements of Order 36 rule 4
An application for leave to defend a summary suit must be supported by an affidavit which states whether the defence alleged goes to the whole or to part only of the plaintiff's claim, and if to part only, to what part. This requirement is mandatory.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Disclosure of Defence — Affidavit Evidence Required
A defence to a summary suit cannot be contained in submissions from the bar but must be disclosed in the affidavit in support of the application for leave to defend. The affidavit must contain facts establishing triable issues, not merely assertions that documents are being verified or that counsel advises a defence exists.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Evasive Denials — Insufficient Defence
An averment that the applicant is in the process of verifying the authenticity of the plaintiff's claims does not amount to an admission or denial and is redundant. Such evasive statements do not establish a triable defence warranting leave to defend.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (1)

  • Scorpion Holdings Limited and Two Others versus Bank of Baroda Uganda Ltd

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sure Telecom Uganda Limited v ZTE Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 99 of 2017) [2017] UGCommC 66 (30 June 2017)
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.