Uganda Case Law

I.K Enterprises Limited & 2 Others v Absa Bank Uganda Limited

I.K Enterprises Limited & 2 Others v Absa Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 404 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 177 (24 June 2024)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 404 of 2024

Judge

Ocaya, J

The applicants failed to raise any triable issue warranting leave to defend the summary suit. Their allegations of delayed loan disbursement were unsupported by evidence of utilization requests or contractual breach. The interest rate of 18.5% was clearly stipulated in the facility agreement and acknowledged in the settlement agreement, which also fixed the amount due and the payment schedule. The applicants are estopped from disputing the indebtedness or interest calculation. The 2nd and 3rd applicants' liability as guarantors is established by their signatures and undertakings in the facili…

Source excerpt

• Summary Suits
• Leave To Defend
• Loan Facility Disputes
• Guarantee Liability
• Interest Rate Disputes

Wasirwa v Jonakee Holdings Ltd

Wasirwa v Jonakee Holdings Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 2410 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 144 (15 December 2023)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 2410 of 2023

Judge

Tumusiime Rubagumya, J

The High Court granted the applicant unconditional leave to defend a summary suit, finding a triable issue over the legality of the claimed 8% monthly interest.

• Summary Procedure
• Leave To Defend
• Loan Agreements
• Interest Rate Disputes
• Money Lending Regulation
• Summary-procedure

MTN Two One Two Staff Cooperative and Credit Society Limited v Majwega Musoke

MTN Two One Two Staff Cooperative and Credit Society Limited v Majwega Musoke (Civil Suit 82 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 137 (22 April 2022)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 82 of 2021

Judge

Stephen Mubiru, J

The court found both procedural and substantive unconscionability in the contract regarding the interest rates imposed on the defendant. The 30% per annum rate and the 5% per month default rate were deemed usurious and excessive compared to prevailing market rates, with no evidence that the defendant was a high-risk borrower. The defendant, though not legally represented, was a sophisticated party and not vulnerable, but the circumstances of the renegotiation gave the plaintiff an unfair advantage. The court exercised its discretion under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act to substitute th…

Source excerpt

• Contract Unconscionability
• Interest Rate Disputes
• Sale Of Land
• Remedies For Breach
• Money Had And Received

Pamrone Investiments Limited v Bank of Africa (U) Limited

Pamrone Investiments Limited v Bank of Africa (U) Limited (Civil Suit No. 322 of 2015) [2020] UGCommC 148 (12 November 2020)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit No. 322 of 2015

Judge

Wabwire, J

The High Court dismissed a bank customer’s claim over an agricultural loan dispute, holding the borrower knowingly signed the financing terms and the interest charges were justified.

• Loan Restructuring
• Interest Rate Disputes
• Breach Of Contract
• Consumer Protection Guidelines
• Breach-of-contract
• Loan-restructuring

Tibeingana v Vijay & Anor

Tibeingana v Vijay & Anor (Miscellaneous Cause No. 10 of 2016) [2016] UGCommC 200 (21 December 2016)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause No. 10 of 2016

The High Court partly allowed a challenge to an arbitral award, upholding liability but reducing interest from 24% to 11% per annum.

• Arbitral Award Setting Aside
• Interest Rate Disputes
• Contractual Indebtedness
• Public Policy Challenge
• Arbitral-award-setting-aside
• Interest-rate-disputes

Tibeingana v Vijay Reddy & Anor

Tibeingana v Vijay Reddy & Anor (Miscellaneous Cause No. 10 of 2016) [2016] UGCommC 221 (21 December 2016)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause No. 10 of 2016

The court found that the arbitral award of US$357,592 was based on the parties' agreement and the Applicant's admission of indebtedness. The sum included agreed interest and represented the contractual consideration for the Respondent's withdrawal from the partnership. The award of interest at 24% per annum was excessive, unconscionable, and not supported by the agreement, which provided for 11% per annum. The arbitrator's omission to consider the Applicant's financial hardship and market rates constituted an error of principle. The court substituted the interest rate with 11% per annum from…

Source excerpt

• Arbitral Award Challenge
• Interest Rate Disputes
• Contractual Indebtedness
• Public Policy Review

Uganda Ecumenical Church Loan Fund Ltd v Mary Florence Nabiyinja Mbuga - (HCT-00-CC-OS 1 of 2005)

Uganda Ecumenical Church Loan Fund Ltd v Mary Florence Nabiyinja Mbuga - (HCT-00-CC-OS 1 of 2005) [2005] UGCommC 30 (19 June 2005)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-00-CC-OS 1 of 2005

The High Court partially granted a mortgagee’s claim, ordering repayment of UGX 7,430,000 with 20% interest and allowing foreclosure if payment was not made.

• Mortgage Enforcement
• Foreclosure
• Right Of Redemption
• Interest Rate Disputes
• Mortgage-enforcement
• Right-of-redemption

Lobo v Baganda Butchers, Limited and Others

Lobo v Baganda Butchers, Limited and Others (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1947) [1947] EACA 3 (1 January 1947)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1947

Judge

Edwards CJ, Graham Paul CJ, Pearson J

The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa upheld a trial court’s reduction of interest on a promissory note, holding that 48% per annum was harsh and unconscionable.

• Promissory Note
• Interest Rate Disputes
• Unconscionable Contracts
• Judicial Discretion
• Money Lending Practices
• Promissory-notes

Sheth and Another v Hussein Brothers (C.A. 18/1936.)

Sheth and Another v Hussein Brothers (C.A. 18/1936.) [1936] EACA 88 (1 January 1936)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

C.A. 18/1936.

Judge

Dalton, C.J(Tanganyika), Hearne, J (Tanganyika), Sheridan CJ

The Court held that the mere fact that the lender was a registered money-lender in Zanzibar and effected a single loan transaction in Kenya does not establish that he was carrying on the business of money-lending in Kenya as defined by the Money-lenders Ordinance. The evidence did not show system, repetition, or continuity of money-lending activities in Kenya. Therefore, the transaction was not unenforceable for lack of registration under Kenyan law. However, the respondents conceded that interest at 18% per annum should not have been awarded, and the appeal was allowed on that point. The pri…

Source excerpt

• Money Lending Regulation
• Licensing Requirements
• Enforceability Of Contracts
• Interest Rate Disputes