Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
First finance group Ltd v Okwere (HCCS 391 of 2013) [2018] UGCommC 67 (26 October 2018)
The High Court found that First Finance had acquired Future Finance’s debts and could sue to recover USD 30,000 from the defendant.
Vincent Kawunde T/A Oscar Associates v Kato (HCT-00-CC-OS 4 of 2007) [2008] UGCommC 22 (4 March 2008)
The court refused foreclosure of mortgaged property, holding that most of the debt claim was time-barred interest and the pleadings did not separate principal from interest.
Busoga Growers Cooperative Union Ltd v Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (HCT-00-CC-CS 240 of 2004) [2007] UGCommC 17 (20 February 2007)
The court held that the defendant, Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust, was only entitled to recover the sum assigned under the deed of assignment, which was Shs.49,383,580.00 as at 31/12/1995. Any claim for amounts in excess of this sum, including interest accrued prior to the assignment date, was not supported by law or the assignment deed. The defendant's demand and receipt of Shs.146,490,444.00 was without legal basis, as the assignment specified the cut-off date and amount. The court found that the plaintiff had paid a total sum far in excess of the assigned amount, resulting in unjust…
Source excerpt
Kapeeka Coffee Works Limited and Another v Non -Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Civil Appeal 53 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 21 (2 March 2001)
The Court of Appeal held that the respondent's amended plaint failed to comply with regulation 4(b) of S.I. No. 76/95, which mandates that notice of assignment in favour of the Trust must be forwarded by the bank to the debtor in the prescribed form. The plaint only pleaded notice of intention to sue, not notice of assignment, and did not demonstrate compliance with the statutory requirement. This omission is fatal, as it constitutes non-compliance with a mandatory provision of law, thereby rendering the plaint defective and disclosing no cause of action against the appellants. The appeal was…
Source excerpt
Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust v Kapeeka Coffee Works Limited and 2 Others (Tribunal Case No. 40 of 1996) [2000] UGPPDPAAT 1 (28 March 2000)
The Tribunal overruled a preliminary objection, holding that the pleadings and party liability issues required evidence at trial and should proceed on the merits.
General Industries (U) Ltd v Non.Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1998) [1999] UGHC 22 (12 January 1999)
The Supreme Court held that although the mortgage contract recited consideration as a loan of shs. 700m/=, both parties agreed that no such loan was advanced. The true consideration was UCB's forbearance in postponing recovery of the debt, as part of a restructuring and rescheduling arrangement, and this was properly inferred from extrinsic evidence admitted at trial. The Court found that the exclusionary rule in section 91 of the Evidence Act did not preclude reliance on such evidence, especially where the appellant itself introduced evidence to show lack of consideration. The Tribunal and C…
Source excerpt
