[2025] UGCommC 114

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) CIVIL SUIT NO. 0353 OF 2024

PLATINUM CREDIT (U) LTD …….………………………. PLAINTIFF

### VERSUS

## 15 KARUHANGA JULIUS TUSIIME ………………………. DEFENDANT

### BEFORE : HON. LADY JUSTICE SUSAN ODONGO

#### JUDGMENT

#### 20 Introduction

This suit was instituted by summary proceedings under Order 36 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, S. I. 71-1 for recovery of a liquidated sum of Ugx 74,194,711/=.

According to the plaintiff, the defendant obtained a loan facility of Ugx 25 23,000,000/= to be paid in 3 monthly equal installments. In March 2022 the defendant obtained a USSD top up loan of UGX 49,999,999 payable in 12 equal monthly installments. Part of this amount was used to clear the previous loan and the take home was Ugx 37,803,484/=. In July 2022 the defendant obtained USSD loan top up worth UGX 46,917,489.64/= payable in 9 equal monthly 30 instalments. In February 2023 the defendant obtained another USSD top up loan worth UGX 45,999,999.67/= payable in 12 equal monthly installments. The take home was Ugx 26,817,078/. The defendant paid only two installments of the 12. The defendant had secured the said loans with a Motor vehicle and


5 the plaintiff registered a mortgage on the said vehicle. The defendant is currently indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of UGX 74,194,711/= hence the summary suit.

On 24th May 2024, the defendant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 0971 of 2024 for leave to appear and defend supported by an affidavit deponed by

10 Tusiime Julius Karuhanga. The Applicant/defendant denied being indebted to the Respondent/plaintiff in the said amount. He stated that he had since remitted to the plaintiff/respondent UX 33,000,000/=. He further averred that the loan agreement was illegal and unenforceable, the money charges for expenses, fines and charges is excessive; and the interest claimed by the 15 respondent is untenable harsh and unconscionable. That there were triable issues warranting the rant of the application.

On 1 st July 2024, the respondent/plaintiff filed an affidavit in reply deponed by Kansiime Doreen, the Portfolio Manager Logbook financing of the respondent. She stated that the application was barred by law for having been brought

- 20 outside the statutory period of 10 days. Accordingly, the summons to file an application for leave for appear and defend was served on 15th May 2024 and the applicant only filed the application on 27th May 2024. That the applicant made some payments and is now indebted to the respondent in the tune of Ugx 67,215,103.95/=. That the applicant has not proved any triable issues. - 25 When this application was called on for hearing, neither the Applicant/Defendant nor his counsel appeared in court. The Respondent counsel appeared. The Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the application for the non appearance of the Applicant. He stated that hearing notices were issued to all the parties so there is no excuse for the Applicant not to appear - 30 when the matter has been called up for hearing. Further that the application is not in good faith and merely intended to delay the respondent from realizing the monies owing to them.

This court, therefore, dismissed Miscellaneous Application 0971 of 2024 pursuant to Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules for failure by the 35 applicant/defendant to prosecute the application.

# Court's Determination:

Upon the defendant/applicant's failure to prosecute his application and the consequent dismissal thereof, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree. I take


5 cognizance of the fact, as clarified in the plaintiff/respondent's reply to the application, that certain sums were paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. As such the outstanding sum is not Ugx 74,194,711/= but Ugx 67,215,103.95/=.

Consequently, I enter judgment for the plaintiff for the liquidated sum of Ugx 67,215,103.95/=. That decretal amount is to bear interest at the rate of 6% pa

10 from the date of judgment until payment in full. The plaintiff is awarded the costs of the suit.

15 S. Odongo JUDGE 14/5/2025