[2008] UGCommC 8

[2008] UGCommC 8

The plaintiff bank received a valid countermand notice from its customers instructing it to stop payment of two cheques. Due to an internal error, the cheques were nonetheless paid to the defendant. The defendant failed to deliver the dental chair as agreed, resulting in a total failure of consideration. Under...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] UGCommC 8
Parties
Plaintiff: Stanbic Bank (Uganda) Ltd; Defendant: Sino Africa Health Ltd
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-00-CV-CS 137 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
judgment_for_plaintiff
Legal Topics
Banking Liability, Mistake of Fact, Cheque Countermand, Unjust Enrichment, Contractual Consideration
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Banking Liability Mistake of Fact Cheque Countermand Unjust Enrichment Contractual Consideration

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stanbic Bank (Uganda) Ltd

Plaintiff

Sino Africa Health Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether on 28th August 2003 the plaintiff received a countermand notice in respect of the cheques issued by Gwatiro Nursing Home and Ssemugoma Joseph for a total sum of shs9,000,000/= in favour of the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether payment of the said cheques by the plaintiff on 1st September 2003 was made under a mistake of fact.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant furnished consideration to the plaintiff's said customers in respect of the cheques.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff bank received a valid countermand notice from its customers instructing it to stop payment of two cheques. Due to an internal error, the cheques were nonetheless paid to the defendant. The defendant failed to deliver the dental chair as agreed, resulting in a total failure of consideration. Under Ugandan law and persuasive English authority, a bank that pays a cheque after receiving a countermand acts without mandate and is entitled to recover the sum from the payee unless the payee has changed position in good faith or the payment was for good consideration. The defendant did not supply the dental chair and did not demonstrate any change of position or good faith. The...

Court Disposition

judgment_for_plaintiff

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff UGX 9,000,000 as money paid under a mistake of fact.
  • Interest on the above sum at the rate of 25% per annum from 1st September 2003 until payment in full.