[2004] UGHC 37

[2004] UGHC 37

The appeal was dismissed on the basis that the appellant failed to prove that he furnished consideration for the dishonoured cheque issued by the respondent. The evidence showed that the cheque was issued as a guarantee for a loan to a third party, and not for any service or debt owed by the respondent to the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] UGHC 37
Parties
Appellant: Kasango Peter; Respondent: Voice of Toro Ltd.
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-00-CV-CS-0147 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Bills of Exchange, Cheque Liability, Consideration, Holder in Due Course
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Bills of Exchange Cheque Liability Consideration Holder in Due Course

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kasango Peter

Appellant

Voice of Toro Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the appellant furnished consideration for the dishonoured cheque issued by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant sued the correct party in respect of the dishonoured cheque.
  3. 3 Whether the lower court erred in allowing the respondent leave to defend the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed on the basis that the appellant failed to prove that he furnished consideration for the dishonoured cheque issued by the respondent. The evidence showed that the cheque was issued as a guarantee for a loan to a third party, and not for any service or debt owed by the respondent to the appellant. The appellant admitted in cross-examination that he did not provide any service to the respondent, and thus was not a holder in due course under the Bills of Exchange Act. The lower court's decision to dismiss the suit was upheld, as the appellant's claim was not supported by the requisite consideration, and the plaint did not meet the requirements for a specially endorsed...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The respondent is entitled to two-thirds of the costs of the appeal.