Edmond Bitalo t/a Three Angels Nursery v Luwedde & Anor (High Court Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2000) [2001] UGHC 10 (2 October 2001)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang2057\deflangfe2057{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f250\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f251\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f253\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f254\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f255\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f256\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f257\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f258\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{ \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa100\sbauto1\saauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid7568464 Normal (Web);}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid1919457 footer;}{\*\cs17 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid1919457 page number;}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid161706\rsid1537208\rsid1919457\rsid2752745\rsid2961327\rsid3604809\rsid5070375\rsid5119782\rsid5200407\rsid7568464\rsid12141481\rsid12911510\rsid12937867\rsid14032769\rsid16407919\rsid16673256} {\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA }{\author DELL}{\operator skivumbi}{\creatim\yr2009\mo11\dy10\hr15\min3}{\revtim\yr2009\mo11\dy10\hr15\min7}{\version3}{\edmins4}{\nofpages6}{\nofwords1811}{\nofchars10324} {\nofcharsws12111}{\vern24689}}\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot7568464\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1919457 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1919457 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1919457 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1919457 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\footer \pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\pvpara\phmrg\posxr\posy0\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid204841 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs17\insrsid1919457 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\cs17\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid1919457 6}}}{\cs17\insrsid1919457 \par }\pard \s16\ql \li0\ri360\widctlpar\tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin360\lin0\itap0\pararsid1919457 {\insrsid1919457 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1 \widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5200407 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA}{\b\insrsid161706\charrsid5200407 \par }{\b\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA}{\b\insrsid161706\charrsid5200407 \par }{\b\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 HIGH COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO.48 OF 2000}{\b\insrsid161706\charrsid5200407 \par }{\b\i\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 (ARISING FROM MPIGI CIVIL SUIT NO.10 OF 2001)}{\b\i\insrsid161706\charrsid5200407 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5200407 {\b\insrsid161706\charrsid5200407 EDMOND BITALO t/a \}:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPELLANT }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 \line }{\b\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 THREE ANGELS NUR}{\b\insrsid161706\charrsid5200407 SERY \par }\pard \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5200407 {\b\insrsid161706\charrsid5200407 VERSUS \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5200407 {\b\insrsid161706\charrsid5200407 1. MARY LUW}{\b\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 EDDE }{\insrsid161706\charrsid5200407 \}}{\b\insrsid161706\charrsid5200407 ::::::}{\b\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 :::::::::::::::::::::::}{\b\insrsid161706\charrsid5200407 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENTS}{\b\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 \line 2. GRACE NAKABITO }{ \b\insrsid161706\charrsid5200407 \par }{\b\ul\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 BEFORE: THE HON. MR. JUSTICE E. S. LUGAYIZI}{\b\ul\insrsid161706\charrsid5200407 \par }\pard \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5200407 {\b\ul\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 JUDGEMENT}{\b\ul\insrsid161706\charrsid5200407 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5200407 {\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 This judgment is in respect of an appeal which was lodged by the appellant against the ruling of a Magistrate Grade I (Her Worship Sarah Kolya Mponye) which is dated 8th May, 2000. In that ruling the said Magistrate dismissed the appellant\rquote s application for orders, am}{\insrsid3604809\charrsid5200407 ong others, to set a side an ex}{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 parte judgment and decree and to give the appellant unconditional leave to appear and defend Mpigi Civil Suit No. 10 of 2000. The a}{\insrsid5119782\charrsid5200407 ppellant was aggrieved by that }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 ruling and as a }{ \insrsid3604809\charrsid5200407 result he appealed against it. \par }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 Before Court gets into the merits of the appeal it is pertinent to understand its background which is briefly as follows. On 29}{\super\insrsid7568464\charrsid1919457 th}{\b\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 }{ \insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 Feb}{\insrsid14032769\charrsid5200407 ruary 2000 the respondents (as ad}{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 ministrators of the estate of the late Brandina Nalubege Maaso) filed Civil Suit No. 10 of 2000 at Mpigi Chief Magistrate\rquote s Court. That suit was against the appellant. Under it the respondents claimed a sum of shs. 900,000/= which they said the appellant owed them on accou}{\insrsid1919457 nt of rent for commercial }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 residential premises at Maganjo. After filing the said suit, the respondents wrote a letter dated 14}{\super\insrsid7568464\charrsid1919457 th}{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 March 2000 to the Chief Magistrate of Mpigi in which they prayed }{ \insrsid1537208\charrsid5200407 for judgment on account that when they served the appellant with summons \lquote in summary suit }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 on plaint\'94 , he did not respond by applying for leave to defend the suit. On the same day, the Chief Magistrate responded to the respondents\rquote letter by entering judgment against the appellant in Mpigi Civil Suit No. 10 of 2000. Subsequently, the respondents \rquote advocate Mr. Kaala extracted a decree against the appellant for the}{\insrsid1537208\charrsid5200407 payment of sum of shs. 900,000/=, an eviction order and costs. The respondent}{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 s }{ \insrsid1537208\charrsid5200407 were on the verge of }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 executing the }{\insrsid1537208\charrsid5200407 decree when}{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 the appellant made an }{\insrsid1537208\charrsid5200407 application to set aside the ex}{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 parte judgment and decree and for unconditional leave to defend the suit. Eventually, the learned Magistrate (Her Worship Sarah Kolya Mponye) heard the application and in her ruling dated 8} {\super\insrsid7568464\charrsid1919457 th}{\b\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 May 2000 she refused to grant i}{\insrsid1537208\charrsid5200407 t. She upheld the ex}{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 parte judgment and decree-; and ordered the execution of the decree to continue. As earlier on pointed out, the appellant felt aggrieved by that ruling. On 15th June 2000 he obtained leave to appeal against the ruling. Later on, he filed the appeal which is the subject of this judgment. That is}{\insrsid2961327\charrsid5200407 the background to the appeal. \par }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 In his memorandum of appeal the appellant cited five grounds which Court will not reproduce here because, in essence, they raised only two issues, namely, \line 1. Whether the learned Magistrate erred when she held in her ruling dated 8th}{\b\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 May 2000 that t}{\insrsid2961327\charrsid5200407 he appellant was served with summary suit on plaint?}{ \insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 \line 2. Whether the learned Magistrate erred in law when she }{\insrsid2961327\charrsid5200407 held in her ruling dated 8 May }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 2000 that the appellant\rquote s application did not raise triable issues?}{\insrsid2961327\charrsid5200407 \par At the time of hearing the appeal Mr. Nuwagaba represented the appellant and Mr. Arthur }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 Katongole represented the respondents. Court will now proceed to dispose of the appeal in the light of the above two iss ues, the submissions of counsel, the evidence on record and the law.}{\insrsid2961327\charrsid5200407 \par }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 \line With regard to the first issue, Mr. Nuwagaba submitted that the learned Magistrate erred to rule that the appellant was served with summons }{\b\i\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 \'93 }{ \insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 in summary suit on plaint\'94 when the affidavit that the respondents relied upon to prove service was fundamentally defective. In Mr. Nuwagaba\rquote s opinion that affidavit bore falsehoods and inco}{ \insrsid2961327\charrsid5200407 nsistencies and did not reveal}{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 its source of information. It was therefore bad in law and}{\insrsid2961327\charrsid5200407 could not be used to prove service}{ \insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 . He cited the cases of }{\b\ul\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 Bitaitana }{\b\i\ul\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 v }{\b\ul\insrsid2961327\charrsid5200407 Kananura [1977]}{\b\ul\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 HCB 30; and}{ \b\ul\insrsid2961327\charrsid5200407 Abdu }{\b\ul\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 Serunjo}{\b\ul\insrsid2961327\charrsid5200407 g}{\b\ul\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 i}{\b\ul\insrsid2961327\charrsid5200407 .v. Sekitto [1977]}{ \b\ul\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 HCB 242}{\ul\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 in support of his submission and called upon Court to make a finding in the appellant\rquote s favour }{\insrsid2961327\charrsid5200407 in respect of the first issue. }{\insrsid16407919\charrsid5200407 \par }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 Mr. Katongole was of a different view. He submitted that Mawejje\rquote s affidavit was valid; and it proved that Mawejje serv}{\insrsid16407919\charrsid5200407 ed the appellant with summons. \par }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 In her ruling dated 8th}{\b\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 May, 2000 it is apparent that the learned Magistrate examined the evidence of both sides t o the appeal before she came to the final conclusion on the first issue. Below is w}{\insrsid16407919\charrsid5200407 hat she said. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5200407 {\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 \'93When I looked at the affidavit of service,}{\insrsid16407919\charrsid5200407 I found that one Mawejje David }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 of Kaala & Co. Advocates proceeded to the suit premises on the 1}{\super\insrsid7568464\charrsid1919457 st}{\b\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 day of March 2000 at 9.00 am to effect service. He ... met the defendant who he did not know but was pointed out by the 1st plaintiff. After which he explained the purpose of the visit, the defendant was served though h}{\insrsid16407919\charrsid5200407 e refused to sign the summons. \par }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 Counsel for the appli cant argued that since the defendant/applicant does not work at the suit premises and since the process server did not know the defendant/applicant it raises doubt as to whether the person served was the defendant. }{\b\insrsid16407919\charrsid5200407

\par }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 \line In my view, I do not see any doubt raised ... as the plaintiff who is well known to the defendant was the one who pointed him out to the process server. Secondly the fact that the defendant does not work at the school but works elsewhere is not a ground o n which to base the fact that the affidavit of servi}{\insrsid5119782\charrsid5200407 ce is false. The fact that the }{\insrsid16407919\charrsid5200407 defendant owns the school would render any reasonable person }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 to }{ \insrsid16407919\charrsid5200407 believe that he works there\'85 I}{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 therefore find that there was proper service on the defendant as }{\insrsid16407919\charrsid5200407 per the affidavit of service.\'94 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5200407 {\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 A quick look at the evidence from which the le}{\insrsid16407919\charrsid5200407 arned Magistrate made the above }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 finding tends to leave the impression that the appellant\rquote s denial of service of summons was pitted against the claim of service of summons by two persons, that is to say, Mawejje (the process server) and Luwedde (the }{\insrsid1919457 1}{\super\insrsid16407919\charrsid1919457 s}{\super\insrsid1919457\charrsid1919457 t}{\b\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 respondent). If that was the truth, then it would be quite understandable for the learned Magistrate to have preferred the respondents\rquote claim of service as against the appella}{\insrsid16407919\charrsid5200407 nt\rquote s denial of servic e. However,}{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 in Court\rquote s opinion that first impression does not represent the truth. When one carefully examines Mawejje\rquote s and the respondent\rquote s affidavits one would discover that although Mawejje may have truly served the summons on 1st }{\insrsid16407919\charrsid5200407 March 2000, it is only the r}{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 espondent who could vouch }{\insrsid16407919\charrsid5200407 for the identity of the person }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 served. Mawejje could not do so because he did not know that person. For that reason, in the absence of additional evidence on record (from Mawejje) to the effect that the person he served with summons on}{\insrsid16407919\charrsid5200407 1}{ \super\insrsid16407919\charrsid5200407 st}{\b\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 March 2000 was the same person wh}{\insrsid16407919\charrsid5200407 o appeared as the applicant \line in Mpigi Miscellaneous Application No.100E of 2000, it remains}{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 only}{\insrsid16407919\charrsid5200407 the 1}{\super\insrsid16407919\charrsid5200407 st}{\insrsid16407919\charrsid5200407 respondent\rquote s }{ \insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 word that the said person was the appellant. Consequently, it is the 1St}{\b\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 respondent\rquote s wo rd (that the appellant was served with summons on March 2000) against the appellant\rquote s word that he was not served. Therefore, it is impossible to tell from the record of the lower court which of the said two witnesses (the respondent or the appellant) was telling the truth or was lying on the question of service of summons. In the circumstances, that means that the evidence on record falls short of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the person whom }{\insrsid5070375\charrsid5200407 Mawejje served with summons on 1}{\super\insrsid5070375\charrsid5200407 st}{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 March 2000 was the appellant. In the result, Court has no choice but to find that the learned Magistrate erred when she held in her ruling dated 8 }{\super\insrsid7568464\charrsid1919457 th}{\b\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 May 2000 that the appellant was served with summons \'93in summary suit on plia}{\insrsid5070375\charrsid5200407 nt\'94 . The first issue is therefore resolved in favour of the appellant. \par }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 In Court view, that finding completely disposes}{\insrsid12141481\charrsid5200407 of the appeal because it means that the ex}{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 parte orders that were subsequently entered against the appellant cannot be valid. However, for the sake of addressing all the issues which are the subject of this appeal, Court must}{\insrsid16673256\charrsid5200407 continue with the discussion. }{ \insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 With regard to the second issue, Mr. Nuwagaba submitted that the learned Magistrate erred when she held in her ruling dated 8th May 2000 that the appellant\rquote s application did not raise triable issues. He pointed out that the said application raises at least, three triable issues. The first one is whether in view of section 98(7) of the Land Act the}{\insrsid12141481\charrsid5200407 Magistrate who entered the ex}{ \insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 parte judgment and decree which are the subject of this appeal had jurisdiction to do s}{\insrsid16673256\charrsid5200407 o. }{\insrsid12141481\charrsid5200407 The second one is whether}{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 the }{\insrsid12141481\charrsid5200407 suit in Mpigi }{\insrsid1919457\charrsid5200407 Civil}{\insrsid12141481\charrsid5200407 Suit No. 10}{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 of 2000 can be sustained against the appellant when it does not reveal the particulars of the tenancy and the rent in question. The third issue is whether in view o f his claim that he is the owner of the suit premises the appellant has a good defence to Mpigi Ci}{\insrsid12141481\charrsid5200407 vil Suit No. 10 of 2000. On the strength of the foregoing }{\insrsid1919457\charrsid5200407 Mrs.}{ \insrsid12141481\charrsid5200407 }{\insrsid16673256\charrsid5200407 Nuwagaba prayed court to resolve the second issue in favour of the appellant. \par }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 Mr. Katongole disagreed with Mr. Nuwagaba\rquote s submission above. On his part, he submitted that the tenancy in question is a matter that is shown by the annextures to the pleadings in Mpigi Civil Suit No. 10 of 2000 to be agreed upon by the parties herein. However, he pointed out that the only claim that the above suit is intended to addre}{\insrsid16673256\charrsid5200407 ss is one of outstanding rent; }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 and the appellant has no good defence to that claim.. Mr. Katongole therefore called upon Court to resolve the second issue in favour of the respondents. }{\insrsid2752745\charrsid5200407 \par Whether or not the learned magistrate erred in holding that the appellant\rquote s application did not }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 raise triable issues depends on the contents of the affidavit that accompanied that application. If that affidavit reveals that there is a reasonable ground of defence to the respondents\rquote claim in Mpigi Civil Suit No. 10 of 2000 or that there is a question in dispute between the parties in that suit that ought to be tried then it raises triable issues, otherwise it does not. (See }{\b\ul\insrsid1919457 Mu}{ \b\ul\insrsid2752745\charrsid5200407 kula Intergl}{\b\ul\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 obal Trade Agency Ltd v Bank of Uganda (1983) HCB 64; Souza Figuerido & Co Ltd; Moorings v Hotel Co. Ltd }{\b\ul\insrsid7568464\charrsid1919457 (1959)}{ \b\i\ul\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 }{\b\ul\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 E. A. 425; and Coffee Marketing Board v Transocean (U) Ltd High Court Civil Suit No. 96 of 1991. }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 The underlying question now is whether the appellant\rquote s affidavit in Mpigi Miscellaneous Application No. 100F of 2000 reveals that there is a reasonable ground of defence to the respondents\rquote claim in Mpigi Civil Suit No 10 of 2000 or that there is a question in dispute between the parties to that suit that ought to be tried? The appellants\rquote affidavit in respect of Mpigi Mi}{\insrsid2752745\charrsid5200407 scellaneous Application No. 100F of 2000 reads as follows i}{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 n}{\insrsid2752745\charrsid5200407 }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 paragraph9}{\insrsid2752745\charrsid5200407 :- \par }\pard \s15\qj \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5200407 {\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 \'93 That I have a strong defence on the merits as the premises in question belong to me together with others jointly. Indeed there is no tenancy agreement between me an}{\insrsid2752745\charrsid5200407 d the respondents/plaintiffs.\'94 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5200407 {\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 In court\rquote s opinion that affidavit which shows that th}{ \insrsid2752745\charrsid5200407 e appellant is a joint owner of }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 the suit premises together with others indeed reveals that he has a reasonable ground of defence to the respondents\rquote claim of rent in Mpigi Civil Suit No. 10 of 2000. It further reveals that there is a question in dispute between the parties to the suit that ought to be investigated by way of hearing the suit on merit. For those reasons the lea rned Magistrate erred in law when she held in her ruling dated 8th}{\b\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 May 2000 that the appellant\rquote s application did not raise }{\insrsid2752745\charrsid5200407 triable}{ \insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 issues. The second issue has also been resolv}{\insrsid5119782\charrsid5200407 ed in favour of the appellant. }{\insrsid2752745\charrsid5200407 All in all the appeal which is the subject of thi s judgment has succeeded and for that reason, }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 Court here}{\insrsid2752745\charrsid5200407 by makes the following orders. \par }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 1. The learned Magistrate\rquote s ruling dated 8th}{\b\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 Ma}{\insrsid2752745\charrsid5200407 y 2000 is set aside. \line 2. The ex}{ \insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 part}{\insrsid2752745\charrsid5200407 e judg}{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 ment and decree in Mpigi Civil Suit No. 10 of 2000 are also set aside. }{\insrsid2752745\charrsid5200407 \par }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 3. The appellant is granted unconditional leave to defend Mpigi Civil. Suit No. 10 of 2000; and he must file his defe}{\insrsid2752745\charrsid5200407 nce within 15 days of this judgment. \par }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 4. The respondents shall bear the costs of this appeal. }{\insrsid2752745\charrsid5200407 \par 5.}{\i\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 Costs of Miscellaneous Application No. 100F 2000 shall abide the outcome of Mpigi Civil Suit No. 10 of 2000. }{\insrsid2752745\charrsid5200407 \par }\pard \s15\qr \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1919457 {\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 }{\b\insrsid5119782\charrsid5200407 E. S. LUGAYIZI \par }\pard \s15\qr \li5760\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5760\itap0\pararsid1919457 {\b\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 (JUDGE) \line }{\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 2/10/2001 \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5200407 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7568464\charrsid5200407 \par }}