Wasajja Timothy and Another v Finance Trust Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1061 of 2025)
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 conditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit for loan recovery where the defendants admitted indebtedness but disputed the quantum claimed. The court found triable issues of fact regarding the actual amount due, given discrepancies between the demand notice and the plaint, and the absence of a clear account statement showing disbursements and payments. Additional triable issues of law arose from allegations of lack of spousal consent and misrepresentation. Leave was granted on condition that applicants pay 50% of the claimed sum into court within 45 days.
Outcome
Conditional leave to appear and defend granted subject to payment of 50% of claimed sum into court within 45 days and filing of defence within 15 days
Facts
In 2023, the first applicant obtained a loan of UGX 100,000,000 from the respondent bank. After reducing the balance to UGX 75,000,000, he was granted a second facility of UGX 94,303,964, creating a total loan of UGX 170,000,000. The applicant alleged he only received UGX 50,000,000 of the second disbursement and requested account reconciliation, which the bank did not provide. He made payments toward the loan but stopped when reconciliation was refused. The bank issued a statutory notice on 9 May 2024 demanding UGX 164,420,000, then filed a summary suit claiming UGX 112,448,331. The applicants admitted indebtedness but disputed the quantum, alleging the bank concealed material facts and failed to serve proper default notices. The second applicant was guarantor to the loan facility.
Issues
- Whether the Applicants have raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of leave to appear and defend High Court Civil Suit No. 459 of 2025?
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- The Applicants are hereby granted conditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 459 of 2025.
- The Applicants shall pay into Court 50% of the sums claimed in the specially endorsed plaint within forty-five (45) days from the date of this Ruling.
- The Applicants are ordered to file and serve their Written Statements of Defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Ruling.
- Where the condition in (2) above is not satisfied within the stipulated timeframe, the Applicants' leave to appear and defend in Civil Suit No. 459 of 2025 shall be revoked, any pleadings or documents filed struck off the record and a default judgment shall be entered in favour of the Respondent.
- Costs of this application shall be in the cause.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
Cases cited (3)
- Jamil Ssenyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
- Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65
- Kotecha v Adam Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.