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
Norasa Technical Services Ltd and Others v Centenary Rural Development Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 1443 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 211 (8 July 2025)
The High Court granted applicants leave to defend a summary suit after finding a bona fide dispute over the loan balance and interest claimed by the bank.
Geomax Engineering Limited and Others v HCB Financial Services Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2349 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 93 (16 May 2025)
The court found that the applicants had raised genuine disputes regarding the amount borrowed, the nature of the agreement between the parties, and the interest rates charged. These contentions constitute triable issues of fact and law, particularly as to whether the respondent inflated the claim and whether the agreement was a deed of assignment or a money lending contract. The applicants also challenged the capacity in which the 2nd and 3rd applicants were sued and the unconscionability of the interest rates. Applying the principles under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the author…
Source excerpt
Sarah Mazzi Wamala and Jonathan Baddokwaya v White House Holdings Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2642 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 155 (14 April 2025)
The court found that the affidavit in support of the application, though sworn by only the 2nd applicant without written authority from the 1st applicant, was competent because both applicants were involved in the transaction and the evidence would not differ. The court emphasized substantive justice over technicalities. On the merits, the applicants raised bona fide triable issues regarding whether the loan sum was disbursed and received, the legality and excessiveness of the interest rate, and the validity of the guarantees. Contradictions in the amounts and dates of the loans, as well as d…
Source excerpt
Kabonero v African Kings Limited and Another (Civil Suit 685 of 2022) [2023] UGCommC 120 (12 December 2023)
The court found that the Plaintiff advanced Ugx 1,400,000,000/- to the 1st Defendant, guaranteed by the 2nd Defendant, for the construction of 12 houses. The Defendants admitted receipt of the funds and failure to repay, as well as failure to complete the houses. The court rejected the Defendants' argument that the loan was secured by the properties, finding that the sale agreement for the properties predated the loan agreement and was a separate transaction. The Defendants did not adduce evidence of repayment or that the Plaintiff recovered the loan amount through sale of the properties. The…
Source excerpt
Formular Feeds Limited and 3 Others v KCB Bank Limited [2023] UGSC 35 (13 October 2023)
The Supreme Court upheld a bank’s loan claim despite an illegal mortgage, finding the debt and guaranties remained enforceable and dismissing the appeal.
Farm Uganda Farmers Group Limited and 2 Others v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 777 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 76 (20 September 2023)
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate a bona fide triable issue of fact or law to justify granting unconditional leave to appear and defend the summary suit. The applicants' dispute over the amount owed was unsupported by evidence, as they did not prove payment of the disputed UGX 27,000,000. The court held that the applicants' claim against a third party (M/S Blue Cup Company Ltd) did not affect their direct obligation to the respondent under the loan agreement, as the respondent was not a party to the third-party arrangements and had not received instructions to deduct f…
Source excerpt
Farm Uganda Farmers Group Limited and 2 Others v Stanvic Bank of Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 777 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 67 (20 September 2023)
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate a bona fide triable issue of fact or law. The applicants did not provide evidence of payment of the disputed UGX 27,000,000, nor did they prove that the respondent was party to or aware of the arrangements with the third party, M/s Blue Cup Company Ltd. The loan agreement was strictly between the applicants and the respondent, and there was no evidence of instructions to the respondent to deduct funds from any joint account. The applicants' claim against the third party did not constitute a defence to the respondent's claim, as any suc…
Source excerpt
Kitongo & Another v Lystra Investment Limited (Miscellaneous Application 544 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 258 (19 September 2023)
The court found that the applicants were effectively served with summons and failed to file an application for leave to appear and defend within the stipulated ten days. The applicants did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that they had instructed counsel to file the necessary application, nor did they demonstrate any other good cause for their failure. The pending application for extension of time was not served or disposed of before the entry of default judgment, but the rules do not provide that such an unserved application suspends the requirement to file for leave within the presc…
Source excerpt
Kiiza v Kashaija and 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 894 of 2019) [2022] UGCommC 82 (22 September 2022)
High Court held the loan agreements were lawful friendly loans, reduced default interest from 6% to 24% per annum, and ordered release of a title deed.
Prompt Facilities Limited v Isagara and Another (Civil Suit No. 214 of 2016) [2021] UGCommC 39 (24 August 2021)
The court found that although the Defendants made various payments, only UGX 600,000,000 was paid towards the loan in question. Payments to Asiimwe Richard and for building materials were not related to the subject loan and did not discharge the Defendants' obligation. The principal sum of UGX 369,500,000 remained unpaid, and interest at 2% per month was uncontested, amounting to UGX 118,240,000. The total proven debt was UGX 487,740,000. The 2nd Defendant's guarantee was valid and enforceable. The Plaintiff was entitled to interest at 24% per annum from 6th April 2016 until payment in full,…
Source excerpt
