Wakilii

Wasswa Kitatta Kibirango and Another v Ssebiso Peter (Misc. Application No. 2716 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 389 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend a summary suit arising from Civil Suit No. 1066 of 2023
Decision
Applicants granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit

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 that the applicants raised triable issues of fact regarding whether the purchase price for the disputed land had been fully paid, including whether a sale agreement dated 13th November 2021 existed and was later amended. The court found that the affidavit sworn by the 1st applicant on behalf of the 2nd applicant was competent where both applicants were involved in the same transaction, shared knowledge of all relevant facts, and relied on the same evidence. The application for unconditional leave to appear and defend was granted.

Outcome

Applicants granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit

Facts

The applicants purchased land from the respondent on 13th November 2021 for UGX 90,000,000, which they claimed was paid in full. The respondent later demanded UGX 205,000,000, claiming the land had been undervalued. A second agreement was executed on 20th May 2022 reflecting this price. The applicants contended they paid a total of UGX 209,500,000, exceeding the amended purchase price, and the respondent delivered transfer forms. The respondent denied the existence of the first agreement, claimed only UGX 119,500,000 was paid, and filed a summary suit seeking to recover the alleged balance of UGX 80,500,000. The applicants applied for leave to appear and defend.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants have raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 1066 of 2023?
  2. Whether the affidavit in support of the application was competent when sworn by the 1st Applicant on behalf of the 2nd Applicant without express authorization?
  3. Whether the affidavit in support contained falsehoods and deliberate misrepresentations?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Applicants are hereby granted unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 1066 of 2023.
  • The Applicants are ordered to file their Written Statement of Defence within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Ruling.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Competence — Joint Applicants — Authorization
Where two or more applicants are involved in the same transaction and rely on the same facts and evidence, an affidavit sworn by one applicant expressly stating it is on behalf of another applicant is not fatally defective for lack of express written authorization, provided the deponent has knowledge of all material facts and the affidavit makes specific reference to the other applicant.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Content Requirements — Knowledge of Deponent
What is required in affidavits is the knowledge or belief of the deponent rather than authorization by a party to the litigation. Affidavit content is dictated by substantive rules of evidence and their form by rules of procedure.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Leave to Appear and Defend — Test for Grant
For leave to appear and defend a summary suit to be granted, an applicant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bona fide triable issue of fact or law. A triable issue arises when a material proposition of law or fact is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Scope of Procedure — When Appropriate
Summary procedure is resorted to in clear and straightforward cases where the demand is liquidated and there are no issues for determination by court except for the grant of the claim. Where the facts and evidence disclose issues requiring verification through a trial, the matter falls outside the ambit of summary procedure.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Procedure
An application to amend pleadings under Order 6 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules must be brought by formal chamber summons as required by Order 6 Rule 31, and cannot be made by way of prayer in written submissions filed in a different application.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (14)

  • Uganda Telecom Limited v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2017)
  • Bishop Patrick Baligasiima v Kiiza Daniel and 16 Others (Misc. Application No. 1495 of 2016)
  • Scorpion Holding Ltd and 2 Others v Bank of Baroda (U) Ltd (Misc. Application No. 286 of 2013)
  • MHK Engineering Services (U) Ltd v Macdowell Limited (Misc. Application No. 825 of 2018)
  • Grace Namulondo and 3 Others v John Jones Serwanga Salongo and 2 Others (Misc. Cause No. 001 of 2019)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol Vs Bank of Uganda [1999] 2 EA 22
  • Namutebi Matilda v Ssemanda Simon and 2 Others (Misc. Application No. 430 of 2021)
  • Amtorg Trading Corporation Vs United States, 71 F.2d 524
  • Ready Agro Suppliers and Others v Uganda Development Bank Ltd (Misc. Application No. 379 of 2005)
  • Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd Vs Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65 at 66
  • Jamil Ssenyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012)
  • Kotecha Vs Adam Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd Vs Bombay Garage [1958] EA 741
  • Churanjila & Co. Vs A.H Adam (1) (1950) 17 EACA 92

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wasswa Kitatta Kibirango and Another v Ssebiso Peter (Misc. Application No. 2716 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 389 (2 May 2024)
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.