v Hydro Uganda Limited & 3 Others v UAP Old Mutual Insurance Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2493 of 2023)
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
Held: Counter indemnities are autonomous agreements independent of the underlying principal guarantees and the original contracts. The guarantor is entitled to payment on demand where the demand complies with the counter indemnity's terms, regardless of whether the guarantor has paid the beneficiary or whether the underlying bond remains valid. The applicants failed to disclose a bona fide defence raising triable issues; their proposed defences lacked an arguable basis in law and fact. Application dismissed and judgment entered for the respondent.
Outcome
Applicants denied leave to defend. Judgment entered for the respondent on the counter indemnities.
Facts
The 1st and 2nd applicants entered into Engineering, Procurement and Construction Turnkey Contracts for hydropower projects requiring advance payment and performance guarantees. The respondent issued three advance payment bonds and two performance bonds secured by general counter indemnities from the 1st and 2nd applicants and personal counter indemnities from the 3rd and 4th applicants. The beneficiaries called on the bonds in December 2021 and February 2022. The respondent paid out under a prior court order and filed a summary suit to recover from the applicants under the counter indemnities. The applicants sought leave to defend, arguing that the bonds had expired when called, that the counter indemnities were void due to misrepresentation regarding renewal, and that calls were made during an interim injunction.
Issues
- Whether the applicants have disclosed a bona fide defence that raises triable issues entitling them to unconditional leave to appear and defend the summary suit.
- Whether counter indemnities given to secure advance payment and performance bonds are enforceable notwithstanding alleged defects in the underlying bonds.
- Whether the respondent was entitled to call on the counter indemnities when the underlying bonds had allegedly expired.
- Whether alleged misrepresentation regarding renewal of bonds renders the counter indemnities void and unenforceable.
Orders
- Application for leave to appear and defend dismissed with costs to the respondent.
- Judgment entered for the respondent in accordance with the prayers contained in the plaint.
- Costs of the suit awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (8)
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Judicature Act s.33
- Civil Procedure Rules O.36 r.3
- Civil Procedure Rules O.36 r.4
- Civil Procedure Rules O.36 r.5
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3
- Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.30(1)
Cases cited (8)
- S. M Ssebowa Family Ltd v Manna Harvesters International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 161 of 2017)
- M.M.K Engineering v Mantrust Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 128 of 2012)
- Bhaker Kotecha v Adam Muhammed [2002] 1 EA 112
- Makula Inter global Trade Agency v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
- Jamil Senyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
- Denel Soc Limited v Absa Bank Limited and others [2013] 3 All SA 81
- Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
- Merritt v Merritt [1970] 2 ALL ER 760
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.