Equity Bank main branch at Church House.
The High Court has dismissed an application by Andwyc Constructors and Suppliers and Turinomuhangi Andrew Kapere seeking leave to appeal against orders issued on October 17, 2025 in Miscellaneous Application No. 029 of 2025, ruling that the applicants had failed to prosecute the matter properly and had not shown sufficient basis to challenge the decision.
The ruling was delivered by Hon. Justice Ssemogerere, Karoli Lwanga, with the applicants represented by Mr. Ernest Nabimanya of Nabimanya and Co. Advocates, and Equity Bank represented by Mr. Arinaitwe Bright Rujara of M/S Arinaitwe Rujara and Co. Advocates. The dispute arose from Civil Suit No. 12 of 2025, a summary suit filed by Equity Bank over a loan default. The bank said the applicants had borrowed money to finance contracts with Rubanda District Local Government under RUBA 616/WRKS/2021-2022 and RUBA-MAIF-ACDP/WORKS/2021-2022/2023, but had fallen into arrears, leaving an outstanding balance of UGX 122,460,053. The applicants had earlier sought leave to defend the suit, but when the application came up on June 12, 2025, they and their counsel were absent, prompting the court to enter judgment in default under Order 36 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Court records showed that the applicants later tried to revive the dismissed application through Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 2025. That bid briefly succeeded on October 13, 2025, when the court allowed the application to set aside the dismissal of Misc. Application No. 15 of 2025 and adjourned the matter to October 17, 2025 for the parties to confer. But when the matter returned, the second applicant reportedly said he intended to settle the dispute yet could not identify deductions on his account statement that related to the loan.
The judge noted that the applicants had repeatedly failed to prosecute their applications to defend the suit, and that the default judgment in Civil Suit No. 12 of 2025 remained in force pending extraction of a decree. In the application for leave to appeal, the judge observed that there were no pleadings from the respondent and no proof that the June 19, 2026 hearing notice had been served on the parties, despite the applicants having extracted it on June 11, 2026. Even so, the court said it could proceed by considering the materials before it.
Justice Ssemogerere then turned to Order 36 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which allows a court to set aside a decree where service of summons was ineffective or for other good cause.
The judge found that the applicants had shown “a deliberate unwillingness” to challenge the alleged indebtedness after being given enough opportunity to do so. He further noted that they had failed to extract the orders of court in a way that would properly frame grounds of appeal, adding: “An appeal is from a decree and orders, not a judgment.”
On that basis, the court held that the application could not succeed. The application was dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent.
About The Author
