Share
Stanbic Bank (U) Limited v Rebecca Kaduru (Civil Suit No. 113 of 2023) [2025] UGCommC 196 (24 June 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] UGCommC 196
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Susan Odongo, J
- Case number
- Civil Suit No. 113 of 2023
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Susan Odongo, J
- Case number
- Civil Suit No. 113 of 2023
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the defendant was properly served with summons and failed to file a defense within the prescribed time. The plaintiff complied with the procedural requirements by filing an affidavit of service. Under Order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court is empowered to enter default judgment for a liquidated demand where the defendant fails to defend. The plaintiff's claim was for a specific sum arising from a loan agreement, and the defendant's default entitled the plaintiff to judgment for the amount claimed, interest at the contractual rate, and costs. The court emphasized the importance of expeditious resolution of disputes and adherence to procedural rules to maintain the credibility and effectiveness of the judicial system.
Court disposition
default judgment entered for the plaintiff
Orders
- The defendant shall pay the plaintiff Ugx 124,486,940 as outstanding principal loan and interest.
- Interest on the above sum at a rate of 18% per annum from the date of default until payment in full.
- Costs of the suit are awarded to the plaintiff.
02
Material facts
Parties
Stanbic Bank (U) Limited
Plaintiff Counsel: Paul Winyi KasamiRebecca Kaduru
DefendantAmounts and remedies
- Principal Loan and Interest Awarded: UGX 124,486,940
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether default judgment should be entered against the defendant for failure to file a defense within the prescribed time.
- 02
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the claimed sum, interest, and costs as a result of the defendant's default.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiff argued that the defendant was duly served with summons to file a defense but failed to respond or file any defense. The plaintiff effected substituted service via publication in the Monitor Newspaper and filed an affidavit of service. The plaintiff prayed for default judgment under Order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking payment of the outstanding loan amount, interest at 18% per annum from the date of breach, and costs.
- Respondent
- The defendant did not file any defense or participate in the proceedings.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order 9 rule 5 and rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 17-1
Where a defendant fails to file a defense within the time prescribed, and the plaintiff files an affidavit of service, the court may enter default judgment for a liquidated demand.
- 02
Order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 17-1
The court may award interest at the rate specified in the plaint or, if unspecified, at 8 percent per year to the date of judgment and costs.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the defendant was properly served with summons and failed to file a defense within the prescribed time. The plaintiff complied with the procedural requirements by filing an affidavit of service. Under Order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court is empowered to enter default judgment for a liquidated demand where the defendant fails to defend. The plaintiff's claim was for a specific sum arising from a loan agreement, and the defendant's default entitled the plaintiff to judgment for the amount claimed, interest at the contractual rate, and costs. The court emphasized the importance of expeditious resolution of disputes and adherence to procedural rules to maintain the credibility and effectiveness of the judicial system.
Obiter and limits
- Timely resolution of disputes is essential for the credibility and effectiveness of the judicial system.
- Public policy demands that the business of the courts should be conducted expeditiously, supported by diligent participation of parties.
Court disposition
default judgment entered for the plaintiff
- The defendant shall pay the plaintiff Ugx 124,486,940 as outstanding principal loan and interest.
- Interest on the above sum at a rate of 18% per annum from the date of default until payment in full.
- Costs of the suit are awarded to the plaintiff.
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
5 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) CIVIL SUIT NO. 0113 OF 2023
10 STANBIC BANK (U) LIMITED………………………….…….. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
REBECCA KADURU……………………..…………........ DEFENDANT
BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE SUSAN ODONGO
JUDGMENT
- 20 The Plaintiff filed this suit for the following orders: - a) Payment of Ugx 124,486,940/- (Uganda Shillings One hundred Twenty Four million, Four Hundred Eighty Six Thousand, Nine hundred Forty only) being outstanding principal loan and interest; - b) Interest on a) above at a rate of 18% per annum from the date of breach 25 until payment in full; - c) Costs of the suit.
The facts of the case are that on 27th March 2014, the plaintiff provided credit facilities to the defendant by a loan of Ugx 90,000,000 at interest rate of 18% per annum and payment of the principal was by monthly instalments of Ugx
5 2,339,692/-. The defendant irregularly serviced her loan and subsequently defaulted on her payment obligations. Despite several reminders the defendant failed to make good her obligations. Hence the debt of Ugx 124,486,940/-.
When this matter came up for hearing, the plaintiff was represented by Counsel Paul Winyi Kasami who contended that summons to file a defense were issued
- by the Registrar on 13th 10 February 2025 for service upon the defendant. The defendant did not respond. The plaintiff served the defendant by substituted service in the Monitor Newspaper at page 32 on 12 th May 2025 (an affidavit of service deponed by Hyuha Philip Hiisa). The defendant has not filed a defense. - The plaintiff then prayed for default judgement to be entered against the 15 defendants pursuant to the provisions of Order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules S. I. 17-1.
Determination by Court
The singular question for determination by this Honourable court is *whether* 20 *default judgement should be entered against the defendant.*
It suffices to state that the timely resolution of disputes cannot be overstated, as the credibility and effectiveness of the judicial system are highly dependent on it. In addition, public policy demands that the business of the courts should be conducted expeditiously. One way to support this, is through the diligent
25 participation of the parties to the suit by, inter alia, filing of necessary pleadings in accordance with the directions of the court to enable the progress of the case.
5 Where defendant fails to file a defense within the time prescribed in the summons, the law under Order 9 rule 5 and rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, provides guidance on how to proceed.
The provisions state;
*Order 9*
10 *5. Affidavit of service upon failure to file defence*
*Where any defendant fails to file a defence on or before the day fixed in the summons and the plaintiff is desirous of proceeding upon default of filing the defence under any of the rules of this Order, he or she shall cause an affidavit of service of the summons and failure of the defendant to file a defence within the prescribed time to* 15 *be filed upon the record.*
*6. Judgment upon a liquidated demand*
*Where the plaint is drawn claiming a liquidated demand and the defendant fails to file a defence, the court may, subject to rule 5 of this Order, pass judgment for any sum not exceeding the sum claimed in the plaint together with interest at the* 20 *rate specified, if any, or if no rate is specified, at the rate of 8 percent per year to the date of judgment and costs.*
I am satisfied that service of summons on the defendant was effective, an affidavit of service is on the record.
Consequently, I enter default judgement against the Defendant as follows:
25 a) Payment to the plaintiff of Ugx 124,486,940/- (Uganda Shillings One hundred Twenty Four million, Four Hundred Eighty Six Thousand, Nine hundred Forty only) being outstanding principal loan and interest;
- 5 b) Interest on a) above at a rate of 18% per annum from the date of default until payment in full; - c) Costs of the suit are awarded to the plaintiff.
I so order.
Dated, signed and delivered in court this 24 th 10 day of June, 2025.
> S. Odongo JUDGE
15
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.