Wakilii

The Board of Governors Nabbi Town S.S.S v Jaker Food Stores Limited (MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION No. 0062 OF 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGHCCD 122 · 2016 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appear and defend summary suit arising from claim for recovery of debt for food supplies
Decision
Applicant granted leave to defend the suit except for the admitted sum of UGX 29,478,100 in respect of which judgment on admission was entered for the respondent

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 granted unconditional leave to appear and defend in respect of the disputed portion of the claim where the applicant contested the volume and cost of food supplies, raising triable issues. However, judgment on admission was entered for UGX 29,478,100 which the applicant unequivocally admitted owing in its affidavit, as the admission was categorical, unambiguous, clear, unconditional and unequivocal under Order 13 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Applicant granted leave to defend the suit except for the admitted sum of UGX 29,478,100 in respect of which judgment on admission was entered for the respondent

Facts

The respondent sued the applicant under summary procedure for recovery of UGX 99,000,000 allegedly owed for food supplies during the first and second terms of 2013 and money borrowed. The applicant applied for leave to appear and defend, denying indebtedness to the full amount claimed but admitting a debt of UGX 29,478,100. The applicant contested the rest of the claim on grounds that certain food items claimed to have been supplied were never delivered and that a 2015 agreement included an interest component requiring investigation. Both parties and their counsel failed to appear at the hearing. The respondent sought either dismissal of the application or judgment on admission for the acknowledged sum.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has disclosed a triable defence warranting unconditional leave to appear and defend the summary suit.
  2. Whether the court should enter judgment on admission in respect of the sum of UGX 29,478,100 acknowledged by the applicant as owed to the respondent.

Orders

  • Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend granted in respect of the disputed claim save for the admitted amount.
  • Judgment on admission entered for the respondent against the applicant in the sum of UGX 29,478,100.
  • Applicant to file defence in respect of the rest of the respondent's claim within fourteen days from the date of this ruling.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Grant
Under Order 36 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, unconditional leave to appear and defend will be granted where the applicant demonstrates that there are issues or questions of fact or law in dispute which ought to be tried, or shows a state of facts which leads to the inference that at trial he may be able to establish a defence to the plaintiff's claim.
Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Leave to Appear and Defend — Disputed Foundation of Claim
Where an applicant for leave to defend disputes the very foundation of the respondent's claim by contesting the volume and cost of supplies made, raising questions as to whether the supplies were made and whether the amount claimed reflects the value of actual supplies, this constitutes a triable issue meriting leave to defend, provided the defence does not appear to be a sham intended only to protract litigation.
Civil Procedure — Judgment on Admission — Discretionary Nature and Requirements
A judgment on admission under Order 13 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules is not a matter of right but a matter of the court's discretion. The admission must be unambiguous, clear, unequivocal, positive and unconditional. The purpose is to enable a plaintiff to obtain quick judgment where there is plainly no defence, and the matter must be plain and obvious.
Civil Procedure — Judgment on Admission — Admission in Affidavit Supporting Application
Where a defendant makes a categorical, unambiguous, clear, unconditional and unequivocal admission of indebtedness in an affidavit in support of an application for leave to defend, judgment on admission may be entered for that admitted sum under Order 13 rule 6, while unconditional leave to defend is granted in respect of the disputed balance.
Civil Procedure — Judgment on Admission — Non-Traversal as Admission
Non-traversal of statements made in a plaintiff's affidavit may be taken as sufficient admission to support judgment on admission, where the defendant fails to answer the plaintiff's affidavit filed in support of an application for judgment on admission.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (7)

  • M.M.K Engineering v Mantrust Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 128 of 2012)
  • Bhaker Kotecha v Adam Muhammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Makula International Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
  • Cassam v Sachania [1982] KLR 191
  • Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation v Daber Enterprises Ltd [2000] 1 EA 75
  • Continental Butchery Ltd v Ndhiwa [1989] KLR 573
  • Porrett v White (1887) 31 Ch D 52

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The Board of Governors Nabbi Town S.S.S v Jaker Food Stores Limited (MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION No. 0062 OF 2016) [2016] UGHCCD 122 (8 December 2016)
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.