Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 04:35 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

11 Apr 2022

Banking And Finance [2022] UGHCCD 58

Christian Rural Eye Sight Promotion v Nkengero and 4 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 432 of 2018)

Christian Rural Eye Sight Promotion v Nkengero and 4 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 432 of 2018) [2022] UGHCCD 58 (11 April 2022)

Court: HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number: High Court Civil Suit No. 432 of 2018

Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited failed in its duty of care as a banker by not conducting adequate due diligence when opening and operating the account for Christian Rural Eye Sight Promotion. The Bank ignored obvious discrepancies in customer identification and failed to verify the legitimacy of the transaction, which resulted in the fraudulent diversion and withdrawal of Euros 40,000 intended for the Plaintiff. The Bank's conduct breached both common law principles of negligence and statutory obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering Act. The evidence established that the Bank facilitated the…

Source excerpt

Bank Negligence
Conversion Of Funds
Know Your Customer
Fraudulent Account Opening
Duty Of Care
Money Laundering Controls

Read case analysis

21 Apr 2004

Tort Law [2004] UGCA 32

Buyondo Kamugunda v Bank of Baroda Uganda Limited

Buyondo Kamugunda v Bank of Baroda Uganda Limited (Civil Appeal 66 of 2002) [2004] UGCA 32 (21 April 2004)

Court: Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number: Civil Appeal 66 of 2002
Judge: Okello, JA, Engwau, JA, Byamugisha, JA

The majority of the Court of Appeal found that the respondent bank was negligent in opening an account in the names of Ham Kamugunda and Godfrey Katanywa without adequate verification, especially given the substantial amount and the government origin of the cheque. The introduction by a mere customer was insufficient, and the bank should have required a more authoritative introduction. The evidence established that the cheque was compensation for land expropriated from the deceased, and the bank admitted collecting and crediting the funds to the account. The burden of proof shifted to the ban…