Share
Kato v Crane Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 123 of 2017) [2018] UGCommC 7 (1 March 2018)
- Citation
- [2018] UGCommC 7
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appear and Defend
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 123 of 2017
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appear and Defend
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 123 of 2017
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any concrete evidence of repayment or raise a bona fide defence to the respondent's claim. The applicant conceded the principal amount was borrowed and did not dispute the contractual interest and penalties. The intended written statement of defence did not raise any triable issue, and the applicant did not attach any receipts or specify the amount allegedly repaid. Accordingly, the application for leave to appear and defend was dismissed for lack of merit, and judgment was entered for the respondent in the claimed sum, with interest and costs.
Court disposition
application dismissed; judgment entered for respondent
Orders
- Application for leave to appear and defend is dismissed with costs.
- Judgment entered in favour of the respondent in the sum of UGX 231,547,352.
- The sum continues to attract interest as contractually agreed until payment in full.
- The defendant shall bear the costs of the suit.
02
Material facts
Parties
Emmanuel Kato
ApplicantCrane Bank Ltd
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Principal Judgment Sum: UGX 231,547,352
03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appear and Defend
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has raised a bona fide and meritorious defence to the respondent's claim.
- 02
Whether there are real triable issues that warrant granting leave to appear and defend the suit.
- 03
Whether the applicant is indebted to the respondent in the claimed sum.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that he is not indebted to the respondent in the sum claimed and that Ascot Associates Ltd, for whom he guaranteed the overdraft, had repaid more than the amount acknowledged by the respondent. He argued that there are real triable issues requiring investigation and determination on their merits.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that Ascot Associates Ltd defaulted on the overdraft and that the applicant, as guarantor, is liable for the outstanding sum, including interest and penalties. The respondent argued that the applicant failed to provide evidence of repayment and did not raise any concrete defence.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules (Uganda)
An applicant seeking leave to defend must demonstrate a bona fide defence or real triable issues.
- 02
General Form of Guarantee; Sanction Letter
A guarantor is liable for the debt as stipulated in the guarantee and sanction letter unless evidence of repayment is provided.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any concrete evidence of repayment or raise a bona fide defence to the respondent's claim. The applicant conceded the principal amount was borrowed and did not dispute the contractual interest and penalties. The intended written statement of defence did not raise any triable issue, and the applicant did not attach any receipts or specify the amount allegedly repaid. Accordingly, the application for leave to appear and defend was dismissed for lack of merit, and judgment was entered for the respondent in the claimed sum, with interest and costs.
Obiter and limits
- Applicants must provide specific evidence of repayment when claiming to have settled part or all of a debt.
- General assertions without documentary support do not constitute a triable issue in summary procedure applications.
Court disposition
application dismissed; judgment entered for respondent
- Application for leave to appear and defend is dismissed with costs.
- Judgment entered in favour of the respondent in the sum of UGX 231,547,352.
- The sum continues to attract interest as contractually agreed until payment in full.
- The defendant shall bear the costs of the suit.
Source and reliance status
Commercial Court of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Commercial Court of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA IN KAMPALA
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 123 OF 2017
(ARISING FROM HCCS NO. 0927 OF 2016)
EMMANUEL KATO :::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT/DEFENDANT
VERSUS
CRANE BANK LTD ::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
BEFORE: THE HON. JUSTICE DAVID K. WANGUTUSI
RULING
The Applicant Kato Emmanuel has lodged this application against Crane Bank Limited herein after called the Respondent seeking leave to appear and defend the suit CS 927 of 2016.
The Application is grounded on the following:
1. The Applicant/Defendant has a bonafide and meritous defence to the whole claim in the main suit.
2. The Applicant/Defendant is not indebted to the Respondent in the sum of UGX 253,547,352/= as averred to in the Pleadings or at all and there are real triable issues which ought to be investigated and determined on their merits.
The facts of the suit giving rise to the application as discerned from the plaint are that Ascot Associates a company limited sought and obtained an overdraft from the Respondent of UGX 135,000,000/=. This overdraft was guaranteed by the Applicant.
The Ascot Associates Ltd utilized the money but defaulted in payment and the same together with agreed interest and penalties, had accumulated to UGX 253,547,352/=.
For those reasons the Respondent instituted this suit.
The Applicant did not deny that Ascot Associates had borrowed. He however claimed that Ascot had paid back more than the 22,000,000/= the Respondent claimed to have received. When Court asked him as to how much had been paid back, he said he did not know.
In an application such as the one where the Applicant claims to have paid the Respondent, he or she must say how much has been paid back.
In considering whether a trial issue has been raised, there must be concrete defences to be raised and not guess work. The Applicant did not attach any receipt to show payment.
The intended written statement of defence does not raise any defence. In fact in paragraph 5 the Applicant concedes that the money borrowed was UGX 135,000,000/= which he is willing to pay at interest rate of 24% pa. I have considered that UGX 135,000,000/=attracted interest and penalties which are clearly spelt out in the Sanction Letter and the General Form of Guarantee the result of which I find no triable issue raised.
The application for leave therefore lacks merit, and is hereby dismissed with costs.
Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the Plaintiff in the sum of 231,547,352/= shillings.
The sum continues to attract interest as contractually agreed upon until payment in full.
The Defendant will also bear the costs of the suit.
Dated at Kampala this 1st day of March 2018.
HON. JUSTICE DAVID WANGUTUSI
JUDGE
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.