Wakilii

Susan Nabirye and Samuel Lumu v Zedek Microfinance Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2009 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 398 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit arising from H.C.C.S. No. 0691 of 2023
Decision
Application dismissed; judgment on admission entered for UGX 137,000,000 plus 16% interest per annum; respondent to prove interest quantum at subsequent hearing.

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 unconditional leave to appear and defend, finding that the applicants' intended written statement of defence did not raise triable issues warranting a trial. The applicants admitted owing UGX 137,000,000 and the court entered judgment on admission for that principal sum plus interest at 16% per annum. The court distinguished between the claimed loan amount and the amount supported by evidence, ordering formal proof of accrued interest.

Outcome

Application dismissed; judgment on admission entered for UGX 137,000,000 plus 16% interest per annum; respondent to prove interest quantum at subsequent hearing.

Facts

The applicants took a loan from the respondent microfinance institution. The respondent claimed the applicants borrowed UGX 178,000,000 on 4 July 2022 to be repaid by 7 July 2023, with an additional UGX 37,000,000 borrowed on 28 July 2022. The respondent instituted Summary Suit No. 0691 of 2023 claiming UGX 246,520,000. The applicants admitted owing UGX 137,000,000 but denied taking UGX 178,000,000, claiming the amounts were inflated. Evidence included a loan agreement dated 4 July 2022 signed by all parties showing UGX 178,000,000, and an email from the respondent dated 25 August 2023 stating the applicants acquired UGX 100,000,000 on 4 July 2022 and UGX 37,000,000 on 28 July 2022. The applicants sought unconditional leave to appear and defend.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises triable issues for the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend.

Orders

  • Judgment on admission is entered against the applicants to pay a sum of UGX 137,000,000 at an interest of 16% per annum to the respondent.
  • Miscellaneous Application No. 2009 of 2023 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • The respondent is to appear in court on 21st March 2024 at 12.00pm for formal proof of the interest accrued on the principal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Leave to Defend — Test for Granting Leave
For an application for leave to defend under Order 36 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to be granted, the applicant must show that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law to be advanced in defence of the suit; the defendant is not bound to show a good defence on the merits but must satisfy the court that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Leave to Defend — Court's Role at Leave Stage
At the stage of considering leave to defend, the court does not endeavour to weigh or decide disputed factual issues or determine whether there is a balance of probabilities in favour of one party or another; the court merely considers whether the facts alleged by the applicant constitute a good defence in law and whether that defence appears to be bona fide.
Civil Procedure — Judgment on Admission — Admission of Part of Claim
Where an applicant unequivocally admits owing part of the sum claimed in affidavit evidence, the court may enter judgment on admission for that admitted amount even where leave to defend is sought on other aspects of the claim.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.36 r.3(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.36 r.4
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.36 r.2

Cases cited (2)

  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Children of Africa v Sarick Construction Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 134 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Susan Nabirye and Samuel Lumu v Zedek Microfinance Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2009 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 398 (27 February 2024)
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.