The Supreme Court held that extrinsic evidence could be used to identify the true consideration for a mortgage, finding UCB’s forbearance supported the mortgage.
General Industries (U) Ltd v Non.Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1998) [1999] UGHC 22 (12 January 1999)
Court
High Court of Uganda
Case number
Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1998
The Supreme Court held that although the mortgage contract recited consideration as a loan of shs. 700m/=, both parties agreed that no such loan was advanced. The true consideration was UCB's forbearance in postponing recovery of the debt, as part of a restructuring and rescheduling arrangement, and this was properly inferred from extrinsic evidence admitted at trial. The Court found that the exclusionary rule in section 91 of the Evidence Act did not preclude reliance on such evidence, especially where the appellant itself introduced evidence to show lack of consideration. The Tribunal and C…