Kisolo v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 99 of 2013)

Court of Appeal · [2021] UGCA 224 · 2021 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second civil appeal from the High Court sitting as a first appellate court over a decision of the Mengo Chief Magistrate's Court

Decision

Appeal dismissed; first appellate court decision upholding judgment for the respondent bank confirmed

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

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

On a second appeal, the Court of Appeal held it was precluded from questioning the first appellate court's findings of fact where there was some evidence to support them. The court found no error of law in the first appellate judge's conclusion that the disputed UGX 2,300,000 deposit was a refund of fraudulently credited funds rather than a promised reward, as that finding was supported by evidence including the bank's correspondence and forensic report. As plaintiff, the appellant bore the burden of proving the funds were his; he produced no deposit cheque or transfer record. The bank's failure to produce ordered documents did not shift that burden. All grounds were disallowed and the appeal dismissed.

Facts

The appellant maintained an account at the respondent bank's IPS Building branch. On 27 February 2009 he discovered that UGX 2,300,000 had been debited from his account. He notified management, and the bank's head office investigation revealed that a bank employee had been using the appellant's account to conduct fraudulent transfers. The appellant claimed the bank promised him a gratuitous reward of UGX 2,300,000 for exposing the fraud but declined to reimburse the wrongly debited sum. The bank contended that the appellant's account had been fraudulently credited with UGX 2,300,000, which was reversed by a debit of the same amount. The bank's correspondence indicated that any gratuitous payment was not an entitlement. The trial magistrate initially found for the appellant, but the High Court, on first appeal, reversed in favour of the bank, finding that the deposit was a refund of fraudulently credited funds, not a reward. The appellant brought a second appeal.

Issues

Whether the first appellate judge failed to properly re-evaluate the evidence on record concerning whether the disputed deposit was a reward or a refund.
Whether the first appellate court erred in faulting the trial magistrate for not addressing the source of the funds rather than treating the respondent's non-production of documents as contempt.
Whether the first appellate judge erred in finding the money fraudulently credited without fraud being pleaded and particularised.
Whether the burden of proving the source of the disputed funds lay on the appellant or the respondent bank.

Orders

Appeal dismissed on all grounds.
The decision and orders of the first appellate court are upheld.
Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Appeals — Second Appeal — Scope of Review of Findings of Fact

On a second appeal, the Court of Appeal is precluded from questioning the findings of fact of the first appellate court where there is some evidence to support those findings, even if it might itself have reached a different conclusion; it may interfere only where there was no evidence to support the finding, this being a question of law.

Appeals — Duty of Second Appellate Court — Re-evaluation by First Appellate Court

A second appellate court is required to determine whether the first appellate court carried out its duty of re-evaluating the evidence; it must correct errors only where the first appellate court failed to re-evaluate the evidence or applied wrong principles.

Burden of Proof — Plaintiff Asserting Entitlement to Funds

A plaintiff who claims that funds in his account are rightfully his bears the onus of proving that fact; this burden does not shift to the defendant bank merely because the bank failed to produce documents it was ordered to produce.

Non-Production of Ordered Documents — Need for Timely Protest or Contempt Application

Where a party fails to comply with an order to produce documents, the applicant for those documents must timely protest or seek a contempt remedy; raising the non-production only in closing submissions deprives the complaining party of any grievance on appeal.

Legislation cited (3)

Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 rule 32(2)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 rule 76(3)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 rule 86

Cases cited (6)

Kibalama Mugwanya v Butebi Investment Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2012)
Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
Baingana John Paul v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2010)
R Mohamed Ali Hasham vs. R (1941) 8 E.A.C.A.93
R. vs. Hasson Bin Said (1942) 9 E.A.C.A.62
Attorney General v Florence Baliraine (Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2003)

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.