Justice Susan Abinyo of the Commercial Division of the High Court has dismissed with costs the application filed by city businesswoman Teopista Nabbale the proprietor of the Teopista and Jesus holdings limited in which she was asking to be allowed to defend the Shs2bn case against her.
According to Court records, ABC Capital Bank Limited filed a commercial suit against Nabbale and served her with court documents but she failed to defend herself and after the judgement was entered against her, she filed an application to be allowed to defend herself which court declined to allow.
“The Applicants did not attach their draft defense, which left Court with no option but to find that the Applicants denial of the outstanding sum is a mere denial and the applicant does not have a genuine defense,” the judge stated in her ruling.
She based on the law as provided under Order 36 Rule 3 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71- 1 (as amended) which states that a Defendant served with summons issued upon the filing of an endorsed plaint, and affidavit under Rule 2 of this Order endorsed “Summary procedure”, shall not appear and defend the suit except upon applying for, and obtaining leave from Court.
More Read
She noted that in Nabbale’s application, there was no Bonafide triable issue of fact or law and a plausible defence to the suit thus dismissing it with costs.
According to the affidavit filed by Prossy Basemera, the bank’s head of legal revealed that Nabbale applied for Shs500m loan from the bank which was supposed to be paid in 36 equal instalments from February, 2020.
In 2021, she went back to the bank and requested that the loan be restructured by the loan facility which was granted and in 2023 she returned to bank and requested for another loan of Shs800m which was also released.
She used her land situated at Kyadondo Block 265, Plot 4846, at Bunamwaya in Wakiso district and his friend Maria Nteganyi as a guarantor but she failed to service her loan facilities in accordance with their terms as agreed and by reasons of the persistent default, the bank issued a notice of default requiring her to pay the whole outstanding loan amount within 45 working days which she also failed to do.
The bank through their lawyers issued a demanding letter to Nabbale and her guarantor for payment of Shs1.6bn which she also failed to pay. They decided to file a suit which she failed to defend and secured a judgement in their favour.
However, in her case, Nabbale insisted that she never intentionally refused to pay the bank’s money but there are discrepancies in the outstanding amount indicated in the bank’s demanding notice and she made several complaints against the amount but the bank failed to listen to her.
She added that when she was receiving the said loans, she neither received independent advice nor interpretation of the Credit Facility Agreements, Personal Guarantee, and Mortgage Deed before execution, thereby relying on the advice of the bank officials, who prejudiced her interests as an illiterate.
The development comes months after this investigative website reported how Exim Bank Uganda Limited hired ruthless Court Bailiffs of Mutesasira Associates and Court Bailiffs to recover billions of shillings from Nabbale through auctioning of her properties after she failed to pay their money as agreed.
According to documents, Nabbale secured a Shs5bn loan from the said financial institution using her land titles as security in 2023, she entered a consent judgment with the bank where she promised to pay the money but protested the amount the bank was claiming that it was demanding from her.
Documents further indicate that the bank claimed that it demanded Shs9bn while Nabbale insisted that the bank was only demanding her Shs5bn and that she agreed in the consent judgement to pay Shs5bn.
Court directed her to file an application challenging the additional Shs4bn which she failed to do and this publication has established that there are criminal charges related to fraud that were filed against Nabbale at Buganda Road court and criminal summons have already been issued against her.
