[2019] UGCommC 8

[2019] UGCommC 8

The court found that the Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for the establishment of a microfinance business, with the Defendant acknowledging receipt of UGX 100,000,000 and depositing a land title as security. The Defendant’s wife corroborated the Plaintiffs’ version by admitting to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] UGCommC 8
Parties
Plaintiff: Wilson Kaggwa; Plaintiff: Diana Esther Kintu (suing through Richard Sekandi); Defendant: Ceaser Ndyowayesu
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCCS 728 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Loan Recovery, Security for Debt, Fraudulent Title
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Breach of Contract Loan Recovery Security for Debt Fraudulent Title

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wilson Kaggwa

Plaintiff

Diana Esther Kintu (suing through Richard Sekandi)

Plaintiff

Ceaser Ndyowayesu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiffs disbursed to the Defendant UGX 100,000,000 to start up a Microfinance facility on the security of land comprised in Singo Block 12 Plot 72 at Kisana.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their monies amounting to UGX 100,000,000 advanced to the Defendant in the course of dealings between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.
  3. 3 What remedies are available to the Plaintiffs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for the establishment of a microfinance business, with the Defendant acknowledging receipt of UGX 100,000,000 and depositing a land title as security. The Defendant’s wife corroborated the Plaintiffs’ version by admitting to delivering part of the money as a refund. The Defendant’s denial was discredited by this evidence. The business never materialized, and the Defendant failed to refund the money, entitling the Plaintiffs to recovery. Although the land title provided as security was found to be a forgery, this did not absolve the Defendant from his obligation to refund the principal sum, less...

Court Disposition

judgment for the plaintiffs

Orders

  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiffs UGX 90,000,000 as special damages.
  • The Defendant shall pay interest on UGX 90,000,000 at 6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.