Wakilii

Wodamba Nathan v M/S KOTS (U) Ltd (HCT-04-CV-MA-0069 2000)

High Court · [2001] UGHC 134 · 2001 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 under Order 33 rules 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Decision
Applicant granted unconditional leave to defend the summary 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 where a plaint under summary procedure claims interest at a rate not fixed by statute or agreed by contract, it takes the plaint outside the scope of Order 33 rule 2. Further, where an applicant raises issues of total lack of consideration and disputes the underlying debt, triable issues are disclosed. Unconditional leave to appear and defend granted.

Outcome

Applicant granted unconditional leave to defend the summary suit

Facts

The respondent supplied goods to a firm and the applicant issued a personal cheque as payment. The cheque was dishonoured upon presentation. The respondent filed a summary suit under Order 33 claiming the debt plus interest at 25%. The applicant sought leave to appear and defend, arguing that the goods were fully paid for, the cheque was issued only as security, and that the plaint improperly claimed interest at 25% when no such rate was agreed. The applicant also contended that he was not indebted to the respondent and that the cheque was presented only to embarrass him.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint properly invoked summary procedure under Order 33 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules where it claimed interest at 25% not fixed by statute or agreed by contract.
  2. Whether the applicant raised triable issues of fact or law sufficient to warrant unconditional leave to appear and defend.

Orders

  • Unconditional leave to appear and defend granted.
  • Costs of the application to be costs in the cause.
  • Written statement of defence to be filed within 10 days from date of ruling.

Rules and key headnotes

Summary Procedure — Interest Claims — Order 33 rule 2 requirements
Where a plaint brought under summary procedure claims interest at a rate fixed by the plaintiff and not agreed by contract or fixed by statute, the plaint does not fall precisely within the terms of Order 33 rule 2 and summary procedure is not available.
Summary Procedure — Discretion of Court — Strict compliance with Order 33
There is no discretion to allow any claim to be brought by summary procedure if it is not precisely within the terms of Order 33 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Leave to Defend — Triable Issues — Standard of proof
An applicant for leave to appear and defend need not show a good defence on the merits but must satisfy the court that there is a prima facie triable issue in dispute which ought to be determined between the parties.
Summary Procedure — Dishonoured Bills of Exchange — Defences available
In a summary suit on a dishonoured cheque, where the defendant raises and proves issues of total lack of consideration, duress, force, or illegality affecting the issue of the cheque, a triable issue is disclosed and the plaintiff ought not to obtain summary judgment.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (9)

  • Nathan Wodamba v Midland Emporium (Mbale HHMA No. 42 of 2000)
  • U.T.C Co. Ltd v Count Bela Pasture (1954) EACA 163
  • Chalmers and Guest on Bills of Exchange, Cheques and Promissory Notes, (14th Ed) at page 228
  • Gold Ores Reduction Co. v Parr (1892) 2 Q.B. 14
  • Haji Ayajabu Kasule v I.I Kaweesa (1957) EA 611
  • Abubakar Kato Kasule v Tomsen Mohwezi (1992-93) HCB 212
  • Musoke Nsubuga v Ntabiru Nyanzi (1985) HCB 50
  • Hasman v Banque du Congo Belge (1935) 5 EACA 89
  • Hassali Issa & Co. v Jeraj Produce Store (1967) EA 555

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wodamba Nathan v M_S KOTS (U) Ltd (HCT-04-CV-MA-0069_2000) [2001] UGHC 134 (21 December 2001)
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.