[2008] UGCommC 42

[2008] UGCommC 42

The applicants failed to put up a plausible defence to the respondent's claim. The guarantees executed by the applicants as directors of Zzimwe Enterprises Hardware & Construction Ltd were continuing securities that covered both the original overdraft facilities and the restructured loan. The respondent demonstrated...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] UGCommC 42
Parties
Applicant: Paul Kasagga; Applicant: Andrew Kasagga; Respondent: Barclays Bank (U) Ltd
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-00-CC-MA 113 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Unconditional Leave to Appear and Defend
Outcome
application dismissed with conditions
Legal Topics
Summary Procedure, Guarantee Liability, Loan Restructuring, Personal Guarantees, Creditor Rights, Triable Issue Standard
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Commercial and Corporate Summary Procedure Guarantee Liability Loan Restructuring Personal Guarantees Creditor Rights +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Kasagga

Applicant

Andrew Kasagga

Applicant

Barclays Bank (U) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Unconditional Leave to Appear and Defend

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown a bona fide triable issue entitling them to unconditional leave to appear and defend the main suit.
  2. 2 Whether the guarantees executed by the applicants are enforceable in respect of the respondent's claim for Ugshs2,211,653,283/05.
  3. 3 Whether demand was made and received by the applicants in respect of the guarantees.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to put up a plausible defence to the respondent's claim. The guarantees executed by the applicants as directors of Zzimwe Enterprises Hardware & Construction Ltd were continuing securities that covered both the original overdraft facilities and the restructured loan. The respondent demonstrated that demand was made and received by the applicants. The applicants did not rebut the respondent's affidavit evidence, and their arguments regarding the enforceability and relevance of the guarantees were unsupported and amounted to a sham defence. The applicants' liability as guarantors is co-extensive with the principal debtor's obligation, but the extent of their liability...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with conditions

Orders

  • The applicants' application to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 51 of 2008 is dismissed.
  • The respondent is not to exercise its rights to recover from the applicants, as guarantors, until the principal debtor's indebtedness is determined in Civil Suit No. 51 of 2008.