Attorney General v Virchand Mithalal & Sons Ltd
Attorney General v Virchand Mithalal & Sons Ltd [2009] UGSC 13 (21 April 2009)
The Supreme Court held that the award of compound interest was not justified by the facts or law. There was no evidence that the government misused or profited from the compensation sum owed to the respondent, nor was there any agreement or legal principle implying compound interest in this context. The distinction between simple and compound interest is substantive: simple interest is awarded for delay in payment of a debt, while compound interest requires evidence of misuse or enrichment by the liable party. The lower courts erred in treating the award of compound interest as a matter of di…
Source excerpt
- Interest Awards
- Compensation For Expropriation
- Court Discretion On Interest
- Fiduciary Duties
- Repossession Claims