Wakilii

Transocean Uganda Limited v Coffee Marketing Board (CIVIL SUIT NO. 96 91)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 123 · 1992 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by defendant for unconditional leave to appear and defend in a summary suit for recovery of loan
Decision
Defendant granted leave to appear and defend; matter to proceed to full 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

Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend granted. The court held that where an applicant shows by affidavit that there is a bona fide triable issue, leave to defend must be granted without condition. The defendant raised triable issues including the existence of an oral agreement for repayment by instalments, disputed amounts paid, and alleged set-offs. These issues could not be resolved summarily without giving the defendant a full hearing, particularly where the suit was based on an oral agreement.

Outcome

Defendant granted leave to appear and defend; matter to proceed to full hearing

Facts

The plaintiff Coffee Marketing Board advanced a loan of US$162,000 to the defendant Transocean (U) Ltd in July 1988 to enable the defendant clear transportation of goods to Dar-es-Salaam. The loan was to be repaid within a short period. The defendant paid US$30,000 but US$132,000 remained outstanding despite several demands. The plaintiff filed a summary suit seeking recovery of the balance plus interest and costs. The defendant applied for unconditional leave to appear and defend, contending that there was an oral agreement for repayment by instalments and set-offs, that it had been honouring the agreement, that a further US$30,000 had been paid but not acknowledged, and that the amount claimed was disputed.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant has a good defence and ought to be granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the summary suit.

Orders

  • Application granted as prayed.
  • Defendant to file written statement of defence within 7 days from the date of the ruling.
  • Case to be set down for hearing on merit.
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Summary Suits — Leave to Defend — Test for Granting Unconditional Leave
Where an applicant shows by affidavit that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law, the court must allow the applicant to defend that issue without condition. The applicant is not bound at this stage to show a good defence on the merits but must satisfy the court that there is an issue or question in dispute which the court ought to try.
Summary Suits — Defence Not Precluded by Offer to Pay by Instalments
It does not follow that because a defendant offers to pay a sum by instalments, he has no legal defence to an action for recovery of the sum.
Summary Suits — Oral Agreements — Inappropriateness of Summary Determination
Where a suit is based on an oral agreement and the defendant raises triable issues regarding the terms of that agreement, such issues cannot be resolved in a summary manner without giving the defendant a full hearing.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Souza Figuerido & Co Ltd v Moorings Hotel Co Ltd [1967] EA 428
  • Babiitalivra Francis Vs. Buyanja Tweheyo C2 Ltd
  • Kunda Restaurant v Devshi & Co (1952) 19 EACA 77
  • Muluku International Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda [1983] HCB 68

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Transocean Uganda Limited v Coffee Marketing Board (CIVIL SUIT NO. 96_91) [1992] UGHC 123 (20 March 1992)
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.