Wakilii

Turyahabwe Joshua and Others v Nyakayojo People's Co-operative Savings and Credit Society Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 88 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 982 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend summary suit brought under Order 36 Civil Procedure Rules
Decision
Applicants granted unconditional leave to appear and defend summary suit; defence to be filed within ten days

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 granted applicants unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit for recovery of loan monies. The respondent failed to discharge its burden of proving that the applicants had borrowed the money claimed, as the evidence produced (loan application form and ledger) lacked proper identification, corroboration, and account details. The court also found that applicants were not properly served with the mandatory summons in summary suit under Order 36 rule 3.

Outcome

Applicants granted unconditional leave to appear and defend summary suit; defence to be filed within ten days

Facts

The respondent, a co-operative savings and credit society, filed a summary suit under Order 36 seeking to recover UGX 65,743,569 from the applicants, comprising principal of UGX 50,000,000 allegedly borrowed by the first applicant on 24 April 2024 and interest of UGX 15,734,569. The second to fourth applicants were named as guarantors. The applicants denied ever borrowing the money or presenting guarantors. In support of its claim, the respondent produced a loan application form allegedly signed by the applicants and witnessed by local council chairpersons, and a loan ledger card showing disbursement of UGX 50,000,000 to Turyahabwe Joshua. The loan application form contained only two photographs instead of four, with no indication of identity. There was no identification card linking the name to a person, no corroborative affidavits from the local council chairpersons who allegedly witnessed the application, and no indication of the bank account into which the loan was allegedly disbursed. The affidavit of service was defective, failing to clearly establish when service occurred and showing that applicants were served with an incorrect form of summons rather than the mandatory summons in summary suit required under Order 36.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses grounds for leave to appear and defend the suit?
  2. Whether the application was filed out of time?

Orders

  • The applicants are granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the respondent's claim in HCCS 12 of 2025.
  • The applicants shall file their defence within ten (10) days from the date of delivery of this ruling.
  • The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Summary Suit Procedure — Leave to Appear and Defend — Burden of Proof
In an application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit, where the defendant denies the debt, the burden lies upon the plaintiff under section 101 of the Evidence Act to prove that the defendant borrowed the money claimed and remains indebted.
Documentary Evidence — Identification — Sufficiency of Proof
A loan application form bearing only two photographs where four borrowers and guarantors are involved, without indication of which photograph corresponds to which party and without corroborative identification documents such as national identity cards, is insufficient to prove the identity of the borrowers.
Summary Suit Procedure — Service of Process — Form of Summons
Where a plaintiff in a summary suit under Order 36 serves the defendant with an incorrect form of summons that does not conform to the mandatory summons in summary suit on plaint prescribed by Form 4 of Appendix A and Order 36 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the defendant cannot be said to have been properly served or to have filed an application out of time.
Summary Suit Procedure — Unconditional Leave to Defend — Grounds
Unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit will be granted where the applicant shows a good defence on the merits, a difficult point of law, a dispute which ought to be tried, a real dispute as to the amount claimed requiring an account to be taken, or any other circumstances showing reasonable grounds of a bona fide defence.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (1)

  • Africa One Logistics Ltd v Kazi Food Logistics (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 964 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Turyahabwe Joshua and Others v Nyakayojo People's Co-operative Savings and Credit Society Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 88 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 982 (
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.