This matter arose from Civil Suit No. 569 of 2024 and related applications concerning recovery of UGX 300,000,000 arising from a contractual arrangement between the parties. The applicant sought leave to appeal against an earlier ruling in which the Court had dismissed her application for extension of time to apply for leave to appear and defend the main suit.
The applicant argued that she had been prevented from filing in time due to mistake of counsel and that she had a defence based on duress in relation to a Memorandum of Understanding. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the applicant had been properly served, had failed to act diligently, and had not presented sufficient evidence to justify extension of time or leave to defend.
The High Court considered the principles governing leave to appeal, including whether the intended appeal raised grounds that merited serious judicial consideration and had a realistic prospect of success. The Court found that the applicant had not provided evidence of instructions to former counsel, had not demonstrated due diligence, and had not presented sufficient facts or evidence to support the alleged defence of duress.
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, with each party ordered to bear its own costs. The matter is relevant to civil litigation, summary procedure, extension of time, leave to appear and defend, contractual debt recovery, and the evidential burden required to support a proposed defence.
Role / Representation
Kashillingi, Rugaba & Associates represented the respondent, Major Isaac Mutungi.