Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Republic of Uganda's High Court in Kampala ruled on Civil Suit No. 0418 of 2023 involving Farm Uganda Farmers' Group Ltd, Sosimu Twesiga, and Kalihanya Kaloudian against Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd. The applicants sought unconditional leave to defend a loan repayment claim of UGX 263,072,329. The court found no genuine defense, noting the applicants' failure to prove a UGX 27,000,000 disputed amount or third-party liability from Blue Cup Company Ltd. Judgment was entered against the applicants for the full loan amount, 12.5% annual interest, and costs.
Transaction Type
Working capital loan facility for barley produce procurement under SACCO/VSLA program
Issues
- What remedies are available to the parties?
- Whether the Applicant should be granted unconditional leave to appear and defend
Holdings
- Judgment was entered against the Applicants jointly and severally for UGX 263,072,329, plus interest at 12.5% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment, and the costs of the Application and main suit. The court cited Order 36 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules to support this remedy.
- The court determined that the Applicants do not have a genuine defence to the main suit and therefore denied them unconditional leave to appear and defend. The Applicants' defences, including disputes over the loan amount and claims against a third party, were found insufficient as they lacked evidence to prove their allegations.
Remedies
- The Applicants are ordered to pay the costs of this Application and the main suit.
- Judgment is hereby entered against the Applicants jointly and severally for the sum of UGX 263,072,329.
- Interest on the sum at a rate of 12.5% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
Contract Value
500000000.00
Monetary Damages
263072329.00
Legal Principles
- The Applicants did not submit evidence to show the Respondent was aware of the joint account or third-party transactions, which is essential to establish a genuine defense under the burden of proof doctrine.
- The court cited case law requiring sufficient disclosure of a defense's nature and grounds. The Applicants' third-party claim alone did not satisfy this burden, as it did not bind the Respondent.
- The court emphasized that the applicant must prove the existence of a triable issue to warrant leave to defend. The Applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence that the Respondent was aware of their third-party arrangements or that the disputed UGX 27,000,000 was paid.
Precedent Name
- Geoffrey Gatete & Anor V William Kyobe
- UMEME Ltd V Justice Anup Singh Choudry
- Makula Interglobal Trade Agency V Bank Of Uganda
- George Fredrick Wekesa V Caltex Kenya Ltd
- Makau Nairuba Mabel V Crane Bank Ltd
Cited Statute
- Civil Procedure Rules
- Evidence Act
Judge Name
Patricia Kahigi Asiimwe
Passage Text
- Before leave to appear and defend is granted, the defendant must show by affidavit or otherwise that there is a bonafide triable issue of fact or law. Where there is a reasonable ground of defence to the claim, the defendant is not entitled to summary judgment.
- The Applicants did not submit any evidence to prove that they paid the said UGX 27,000,000. ... I therefore do not find that this is a triable issue.
- The Applicants have not submitted any evidence to prove that the Respondent was aware of the transaction between the 1st Applicant and the 3rd party. ... the Applicants do not have a genuine defence to the main suit.
Damages / Relief Type
- Compensatory Damages for UGX 263,072,329
- Interest at 12.5% per annum from judgment date until payment in full
- Costs of the application and main suit awarded to the plaintiff