High court affirms that in a summary suit, mere partial payment of the demand without a substantive defence does not entitle a defendant to leave to appear and defend.

Waboga David
Jun 20
3 min read

High court dismisses application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit over UGX 82M Debt.

Subject Matter Summary procedure – Application for unconditional leave to appear and defend – Supply of goods – Liquidated debt – Triable issues – Interest and costs

Presiding Judge Hon. Lady Justice Patience T.E. Rubagumya

Date: June 19 2025

Representation

Applicant: Counsel Wacha Moses (KGN Advocates)
Respondent: Counsel Ronald Kasiisa (Kasiisa & Co. Advocates)

Introduction

Summary procedure is a special mode of proceeding in civil litigation brought under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules, intended to provide a speedy remedy where the defendant has no plausible defence to a clear and straightforward monetary claim.

A defendant served under summary procedure is barred from entering appearance or defending the suit unless they first obtain leave of court by demonstrating that the case raises a bona fide triable issue of law or fact as per Order 36 rule 3 of the CPR

In the present application, the Applicant admitted part of the claim and proposed to settle the outstanding balance through installment payments, citing financial hardship.

The Respondent opposed the application, arguing that the debt was undisputed and admitted, and thus no triable issue arose to justify leave to defend. \

The central question before the Court was whether the Applicant’s affidavit disclosed a genuine defence on the merits or raised any issue worthy of judicial determination, thereby warranting leave to appear and defend the main suit.

Facts

Hotloaf Bakery Ltd applied for unconditional leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 293 of 2025, a summary suit filed by Engaano Millers Ltd to recover UGX 92,012,600/= for supplied drum wheat flour.

The Applicant admitted partial payment of UGX 20,000,000/= and proposed to settle the balance (UGX 82,012,600/=) in weekly installments due to financial constraints.

The Respondent, through its accountant, opposed the application, arguing that:

The Applicant had already admitted to the debt,
No plausible defence had been raised,
The matter was ripe for summary judgment.

Issues

1. Whether the Applicant raised sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of unconditional leave to appear and defend High Court Civil Suit No. 293 of 2025

2. What remedies are available to the parties

Resolution of Issues

The Court considered whether the Applicant had presented a bona fide triable issue of law or fact, as required under Order 36 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

The Court held that mere acknowledgment of debt and a payment proposal without challenging the claim did not amount to a plausible defence.

Since the Applicant admitted to owing UGX 82,012,600/=, there was no dispute requiring judicial examination.

No sufficient grounds were raised. This issue was answered in the negative.

2. What remedies are available to the parties

Upon finding that no triable issues were raised, the Court invoked Order 36 rule 5 CPR to enter judgment in favour of the Respondent.

The Respondent was awarded:

The outstanding sum of UGX 82,012,600/=,
Interest at 6% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment (per Section 26(2) CPA), and
Costs of the application and the main suit (under Section 27(2) CPA).

Judgment entered for the Respondent with full remedies.

Analysis

Relying on Order 36 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and precedents such as Maluku Interglobal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda [1985] HCB 65 and Jamil Ssenyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo, the Court emphasized:

Leave to defend a summary suit is only granted if the Applicant raises a bona fide triable issue of law or fact.
The defence must not be vague or sketchy.
Where no triable issue is shown, the Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment.

The Court noted that:

The Applicant admitted the outstanding balance had reduced to UGX 82,012,600/= (not the full UGX 92 million).
No triable issue was raised; the debt was undisputed and clearly liquidated.
The matter was suitable for summary procedure as per Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd v Bombay Garage [1958] EA 741.

Key Takeaways

In a summary suit, mere partial payment without a substantive defence does not entitle a defendant to leave to appear and defend.
A clear admission of debt renders the matter ripe for summary judgment.
Courts will not hesitate to grant summary judgment where the facts are straightforward and no legal controversy exists

Read the full case