Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Muhwezi (Miscellaneous Application No. 1117 of 2017) [2018] UGCommC 54 (31 May 2018)
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number
Miscellaneous Application No. 1117 of 2017
The court found that although the respondent admitted to defaulting on loan payments, the admissions were not sufficiently clear, unambiguous, and unconditional to warrant judgment on admission under Order 13 rule 6 CPR. Furthermore, the applicant did not have a counterclaim in its pleadings, which is necessary for entitlement to judgment on admission. Regarding the temporary injunction, the court held that while the delay in hearing the suit was inordinate, both parties shared responsibility, and the applicant had not taken steps to set down the suit for hearing. The court declined to discha…
Suzana Haarbosch v Kalili Dagher (High Court Civil Suit No. 310 of 2015) [2015] UGCommC 146 (30 October 2015)
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number
High Court Civil Suit No. 310 of 2015
The High Court declined to enter judgment on admission, finding the defendant’s defence was not a clear and unequivocal admission and ordered the matter to proceed to trial.
Ndimwibo v Mbabali & Anor (Civil Appeal No.71 of 2012) [2014] UGHCLD 117 (29 August 2014)
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
Civil Appeal No.71 of 2012
Judge
Luswata, J
The High Court upheld findings that the appellant was a tenant in tail and trespasser, but reduced mesne profits from UGX 12.3 million to UGX 2.46 million.
Central Electrical International Ltd v Eastern Builders & Engineers Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA 176 of 2008) [2008] UGCommC 47 (21 August 2008)
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Case number
HCT-00-CC-MA 176 of 2008
The High Court of Uganda refused judgment on admission, finding no clear, unequivocal admission in the present suit and dismissing the application with costs.
Devji v Jinabhai (C.A. 6/1934.) [1937] EACA 87 (1 January 1937)
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Case number
C.A. 6/1934.
Judge
Lucie-Smith Ag CJ (Kenya), Sheridan CJ
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing to enlarge the time for filing a defence, as the appellant had failed to comply with the order despite being aware of it. Once this discretion was exercised, the judge was correct to proceed to hear the plaintiff's evidence and enter judgment without permitting the defendant or his counsel to cross-examine or present rebuttal evidence. The court distinguished the present case from Ross v. Scriven, noting that in this instance, oral evidence was taken in support of the claim, whereas in Ross v. Scriven,…