Uganda Case Law

Ataco Freight Services Limited v Stanbic Bank (U) Limited

Ataco Freight Services Limited v Stanbic Bank (U) Limited (Civil Suit 471 of 2017) [2024] UGCommC 147 (16 January 2024)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 471 of 2017

Judge

Abinyo, J

The court found that the transaction between the parties was a finance lease facility, as evidenced by the written agreements and supporting documents. The Plaintiff selected the supplier and assets, executed the sale agreement, and accepted the lease terms. The court held that no evidence supported the Plaintiff's claim of a binding Buy-Back Agreement or advisory role by the Defendant beyond financing. Oral negotiations or assurances could not vary the written contract in the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, or other vitiating factors, none of which were pleaded or proven. The Plaintiff…

Source excerpt

• Finance Leasing
• Breach Of Contract
• Asset Financing
• Loan Default
• Contractual Obligations

NCBA Bank Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 15 of 2020)

NCBA Bank Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application 15 of 2020) [2023] UGTAT 46 (26 June 2023)

Court

Tax Appeals Tribunal (Uganda)

Case number

Application 15 of 2020

Judges

Mugenyi, Chairperson, Mugerwa, Panel Member, Katwe

The Tribunal held that NCBA Bank owed the assessed principal VAT on its financing arrangements, but was also entitled to the full VAT bad debt refund claimed.

• Vat Assessment
• Input Tax Credit
• Bad Debt Refund
• Finance Leasing
• Taxable Value Determination
• Vat-assessment

Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Kalule

Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Kalule (Civil Appeal No. 278 of 2016) [2021] UGCA 132 (25 February 2021)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 278 of 2016

Judge

Kakuru, JA, Madrama, JA, Kiryabwire, JA

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant, Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited, breached the finance lease agreement by repossessing and selling the respondent's truck without providing the contractually required 14 days' written notice. The court found that the lease agreement clearly stipulated the respondent's physical address for service, and the appellant's failure to serve notice at that address rendered the repossession and subsequent sale unlawful. The court further determined that, as a result of this breach, the respondent was deprived of the opportunity to rectify the default and potenti…

Source excerpt

• Finance Leasing
• Breach Of Contract
• Notice Requirements
• Damages Assessment
• Illegality Of Contract
• Asset Recovery