Lanex Forex Bureau Ltd v Mulangwe (Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2016)

Court of Appeal · [2021] UGCA 125 · 2021 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Civil appeal from High Court judgment ordering refund of a deposit

Decision

Appeal dismissed; High Court order that the appellant refund US$160,000 as money had and received upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. On ground one, the appellant's counsel had agreed at trial to reconstruct the lost court record using counsel's handwritten notes and was estopped from later challenging the judgment on that basis; the judgment, delivered shortly after the notes were exchanged, was timely. On ground two, although a forex bureau is statutorily prohibited from accepting deposits, only its officials are culpable; the customer who innocently deposited money may recover it. Retaining the US$160,000 deposit would amount to unjust enrichment, and the sum was rightly treated as money had and received recoverable under the common law principle of restitution applicable in 2005.

Facts

The respondent deposited US$160,000 with Lanex Forex Bureau Ltd, evidenced by a deed of acknowledgement dated 3 October 2005 issued by the bureau's manager, Roopesh Solanki, promising interest of US$12,000 per month. A forex bureau is prohibited by the Exchange Control (Forex Bureau) Order from accepting deposits and may only engage in spot transactions. The respondent sued the bureau and others for refund of the deposit, contractual interest, and general damages. The High Court found the deposit-taking illegal, ordered the bureau to refund the US$160,000 as money had and received, disallowed the interest claim as contravening the Order, dismissed the suit against the other defendants, and refused general damages. During trial the audio recording tapes proved counterfeit and the proceedings were lost; the parties agreed to reconstruct the record from counsel's handwritten notes, and the appellant's counsel certified the reconstructed record as accurate. Judgment was delivered on 10 January 2011, about three years after close of the case. The bureau appealed.

Issues

Whether the trial judge erred in adjudicating and delivering judgment in the absence of the recorded court proceedings and three years after the close of the case.
Whether a forex bureau (corporate entity) should refund an illegal deposit received by its employee outside the scope of his employment and the bureau's statutory mandate.

Orders

Ground 1 of the appeal disallowed.
Ground 2 of the appeal disallowed.
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Reconstruction of Lost Court Record — Estoppel of Party Who Consented

Where parties and their counsel agree to reconstruct a lost trial record using counsel's handwritten notes and certify that record as accurate, a party is estopped under section 114 of the Evidence Act from later challenging a judgment on the ground that it was not based on the recorded court proceedings.

Civil Procedure — Delayed Judgment — When Delay Vitiates Decision

Delay in delivering judgment vitiates a decision only where it becomes so gross as to make a mockery of the parties' right to adjudication or where the judge's recollection of important matters is no longer sufficiently clear; this is assessed case-by-case, and a judgment delivered shortly after the reconstructed record was completed is timely.

Contract Law — Illegality — Recovery by Innocent Party Where Statute Penalises Only the Other Party

Where a statute prohibits and penalises only one party (such as a forex bureau and its officials accepting deposits), a customer who innocently makes a deposit is not in pari delicto and may recover the money paid, as no sanction is directed at the customer.

Restitution — Money Had and Received — Unjust Enrichment Under Common Law

Money received under an agreement that is void or prohibited by statute is recoverable as money had and received under the common law principle of restitution, to prevent unjust enrichment; this common law applied in Uganda before section 54 of the Contracts Act 2010 codified it.

Civil Procedure — Grounds of Appeal — Confinement to Memorandum

Under rules 86 and 102(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, an appellant cannot argue matters outside the grounds specified in the memorandum of appeal; where a finding of fact (such as the making of a deposit) is not appealed, the appellate court proceeds on the premise that it stands.

Legislation cited (12)

Evidence Act cap 6 s.91
Evidence Act cap 6 s.92
Evidence Act cap 6 s.114
Contracts Act 2010 s.54
Contract Act cap 73 s.2
Exchange Control (Forex Bureau) Order 1991 Regulation 14
Exchange Control (Forex Bureau) Order 1991 Regulation 15
Exchange Control (Forex Bureau) Order 1991 Regulation 11(3)
Exchange Control (Forex Bureau) Order 1991 Regulation 34
Court of Appeal Rules r.30(1)
Court of Appeal Rules r.86
Court of Appeal Rules r.102(a)

Cases cited (7)

Boodhoo v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2004] 1 WLR 1689
Ephraim Mwesigwa Kamugwa v The Management Committee of Nyamirama Primary School (Civil Appeal No. 101 of 2011)
Mulewa & Another v Republic [2000] EA 482
Ddegeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1996)
Kiriri Cotton Co Ltd v Dewani [1960] 1 All ER 177
Shelley v Paddock and Another [1980] 1 All ER 1010
Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1942] 2 All ER 122

Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.