Court name
Commercial Court of Uganda
Judgment date
26 June 2002

Francisco Mugabe v Greenland Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application-2002/146) [2002] UGCommC 8 (26 June 2002);

Cite this case
[2002] UGCommC 8


THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)

MISC. APPLICATION NO. 146 OF 2002
(Ari
sing from HCCS No. 67 OF 2002)
FRANCISCO MUGABE:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT/DEFENDANT
VERSUS

GREENLAND BANK LTD
(In Liquidation
)::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
BEFORE: THE HON. MR. JUSTICE R.O. OKUMU WENGI.

RULING:
The applicant seeks to defend a summary suit filed to recover from him the sum of Shs. 9,175,496/= with interest out of a balance outstanding due on an account he held with the plaintiff bank. The plaint had pleaded that the plaintiff had in August 2001 overdrawn his account by the said figure. The plaintiff contests this balance.
As it turned out both parties concede that a repayment was negotiated on 29th January 1998 and both parties set out a figure of Shs. 13,466,315/= to be repaid on his loan account after 50% interest charges had been written off. The defendant who did not controvert the affidavit in reply, was to pay the money in monthly installments of Shs. 1,000,000/= per month. A letter of 30/01/1998 by the plaintiff to the defendant captures this settlement. In his submissions Mr. Apollo Makubuya counsel for the Applicant conceded that the letter did write off interest but then argued further that having paid off some of the money his client was prepared to pay only Shs. 5,466,314/= in installments of Shs. 500,000 per month. This figure he said excludes any interest which should be differed such that the difference making up for the total claim of Shs. 9 million should be written off. He then suggested that this would be a triable issue.
Having heard both counsel and read the pleadings I get the feeling that the strained denial of the debt and the concession of a smaller sum are not convincing to sustain an application for leave to appear and defend the suit. Where leave ought to be given generously it has always been the practice to look at the possible defence of the defendant. In this case the debt was negotiated and set at a figure part of which was paid off leaving a balance. Interest had been differed giving the defendant reason to demand even more deferment of interest. There was unfortunately no proposed written statement of defence filed as would have assisted court to guide into the substance of such defence UCB vs Mukoome Agencies (1982) HCB 22. Give that the sum of Shs. 13 million was reduced to Shs. 9 million by August 2001 as now claimed and no further interest was levied on the Shs. 13 million since 1998 it is only reasonable to conclude that the applicant has no reasonable defence to this suit. His application for leave to defend fails and is dismissed with costs and a decree for Shs. 9,175,496/= is entered against him, to be paid in four equal installments w.e.f 8th July 2002. Default on any of them leading to execution for the entire sum. Any such default will lead to accrual of interest at 25% on the entire balance due till payment in full.



………………………………
JUDGE
27/06/2002.