Wakilii

Sentongo v Orient Bank Limited (I & M Bank (Uganda) Limited (Civil Appeal 1 of 2023)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 85 · 2025 Appeal Substantially Dismissed (Interest & Costs Varied) ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First civil appeal from a High Court (Commercial Division) judgment in consolidated suits HCCS No. 464 of 2018 and HCCS No. 36 of 2019 concerning loan recovery
Decision
Appeal substantially dismissed; the trial court's judgment upheld with variations reducing interest on the principal to 12.5% per annum from 22 January 2019, fixing interest on general damages at 6% per annum, and reducing the respondent's costs award to three-quarters. The temporary injunction and interim stay were vacated.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 substantially dismissed the appeal against a judgment holding the appellant indebted to the respondent bank in UGX 10,384,396,959. It held the lender had discharged the legal burden of proving valid facility agreements and actual disbursement through the borrower's account statement, and the borrower's expert evidence was rightly rejected as unreliable. A short delay in disbursement did not amount to repudiation, and the borrower who took the benefit was barred by approbation and reprobation. Fraud and illegality (insider dealing, champertous connivance) were not pleaded and could not be considered, and a consent judgment in a separate suit could not be reopened. The court reduced interest on the principal from 22% to 12.5% per annum and costs to three-quarters.

Facts

Between 2015 and 2016 the appellant, a property developer, obtained several term-loan and overdraft facilities from the respondent bank, secured by mortgaged property on Kibuga Block 12 (Mengo/Kisenyi), to finance commercial developments including Nakayiza Mall and Segawa Market. A facility letter dated 22 February 2016 made UGX 5,000,000,000 available in tranches subject to documentation, lapsing if not availed within 30 days. The appellant defaulted and, in October 2016, acknowledged debt of about UGX 9.7 billion when consolidating his loans. After continued default, the bank issued notices of default and sale; the appellant sold one mortgaged property to Downtown Bags Ltd, with proceeds partly applied to his arrears. The appellant sued (HCCS 464/2018) alleging non-disbursement, fictitious loans, breach of contract and fiduciary duty, fraud, undue influence and unjust enrichment; the bank counter-sued (HCCS 36/2019) to recover the outstanding sum. The consolidated suits were dismissed and allowed in the bank's favour, holding the appellant indebted in UGX 10,384,396,959 with general damages and interest. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in failing to take account of evidence that loan amounts purportedly disbursed were clawed back, reversed or recovered, and so wrongly held the appellant indebted to the respondent.
  2. Whether the credit transaction under the facility letter dated 22 February 2016 failed or was repudiated for failure to disburse within the stipulated time.
  3. Whether the trial judge misapplied the law on pleadings and fraud in declining to find fraud against the respondent.
  4. Whether the trial judge erred in failing to make a finding on the alleged illegalities of insider dealing and champertous connivance.
  5. Whether the trial judge erred in failing to find the respondent liable for breach of contract, breach of statutory and fiduciary duties, and fraud.
  6. Whether the trial judge erred in declining to award the appellant recovery of sums in unjust enrichment and general and special damages for loss of rental income.
  7. Whether a general ground that fails to specify the points wrongly decided is competent under rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  8. Whether the trial judge awarded the respondent unproven and excessive general damages, excessive interest, and costs.

Orders

  • The appellant's appeal substantially fails, save for variations regarding the rates of interest and costs.
  • The orders of the High Court in Consolidated Civil Suits Nos. 464 of 2018 and 36 of 2019 are upheld subject to the variations on interest and costs.
  • The appellant is indebted to the respondent in the sum of UGX 10,384,396,959.
  • Interest on the sum of UGX 10,384,396,959 is awarded at 12.5% per annum from 22 January 2019 (the date of filing the suit) until payment in full.
  • The respondent is awarded general damages of UGX 150,000,000.
  • Interest on the general damages of UGX 150,000,000 is awarded at 6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The temporary injunction in Civil Application No. 113 of 2023 is vacated forthwith.
  • The interim order staying execution granted in Civil Application No. 1069 of 2023 is vacated forthwith.
  • Three-quarters of the costs of the appeal and in the lower court are to be borne by the appellant.

Key headnotes

Loan Recovery — Burden of Proof — Disbursement of Facilities
Where a lender claims that a borrower is indebted under credit facilities, the legal burden lies on the lender to prove valid and enforceable facility agreements and actual disbursement of the funds, typically by an account statement showing the sums credited; once that legal burden is discharged, the evidential burden shifts to the borrower to prove non-disbursement, recovery or repayment.
Expert Evidence — Weight and Reliability
An expert's opinion is not binding on the court; where the court finds, on good and cogent grounds, that the opinion is unsound or inconsistent with other evidence on record, it is not only entitled but under a duty to reject it.
Repudiation — Time of the Essence — Approbation and Reprobation
A delay in performance is not a fundamental breach justifying repudiation where the substantial benefit of the contract has been conferred and accepted; a party who accepts and uses the benefit of a contract is barred by the doctrine of approbation and reprobation from later contending that the contract lapsed or was repudiated.
Pleadings — Fraud — Order 6 Rule 3
Fraud is a grave allegation that must be specifically pleaded as a cause of action with full particulars and supporting material facts; a court cannot find fraud where it is raised only in submissions and not pleaded, and litigants cannot expect the court to search the pleadings to infer an unpleaded cause of action in fraud.
Consent Judgments — Challenge and Setting Aside
A consent judgment, once endorsed by the court, becomes an order or decree of the court and not a mere agreement; its legality and terms cannot be reopened or declared illegal in a separate subsequent suit but must be challenged on appeal or by review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Mortgages — Enforcement — Economic Duress
The lawful exercise of a mortgagee's rights — issuing notices of default and sale and advertising mortgaged property following the mortgagor's default — does not amount to duress, coercion or undue influence; a threat to do, or the doing of, an act in the exercise of a legal right cannot constitute duress.
Interest and General Damages — Discretion and Rate
Interest and general damages serve distinct purposes, so an award of interest does not disentitle a party to general damages; the award and rate of interest are within the court's discretion under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, exercised judiciously having regard to the commercial nature of the transaction, inflation and currency depreciation.

Legislation cited (17)

  • Evidence Act Cap 6 s.101
  • Evidence Act Cap 6 s.32
  • Civil Procedure Act s.26(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.26(3)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.27
  • Civil Procedure Act s.82
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 r.7
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 11(1) & (2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 46(1)
  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.30(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.86(1)
  • Mortgage Act
  • Registration of Titles Act s.184(b)
  • Bank of Uganda Financial Consumer Protection Guidelines, 2011

Cases cited (27)

  • Fr. Narcensio Begumisa & Others v Eric Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Nazmudin Gulam Hussein Viram v Nicholas Roussos (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2006)
  • Jovelyn Bamugahare v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
  • Oese John Peter v Akol Silver (Civil Appeal No. 336 of 2019)
  • Progressive Group of Schools Limited and 2 Others v Barclays Bank of Uganda and Another (Civil Appeal No. 349 of 2020)
  • Godfrey Ssebanakitta v Fitelex (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2016)
  • Kimani v Republic [2000] 2 E.A 417
  • Boutique Shazim Limited v Bhatia & Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2020)
  • Dison Okumu & Others v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited & Others (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2020)
  • Fam International Limited & Anor v Mohammed Hamed El-Fatih (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1993)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Fredrick J.K. Zaabwe v Orient Bank and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Fang Min v Belex Tours & Travel Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2013)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Anor, [1982] HCB 15
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Limited v East African Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)
  • Lugimbazi Sulaiman v Stanbic Bank (U) Limited (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2019)
  • China Road & Bridge Corporation v Welt Machinen Engineering Limited (Civil Appeals Nos. 13 & 14 of 2019)
  • Attorney General & Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga & James Kamula (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Umeme Limited v Makibuga D. William t/a Pola Plastic (Civil Appeal No. 276 of 2015)
  • Francis Sembuga v Allport Services Uganda Limited (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1999)
  • Flint versus Lovell [1935] 1 KB 354
  • Crane Bank Ltd v Nipun Narottam Bhatia (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2014)
  • Sietco v Noble Builders Limited (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995)
  • Omungokol Akol Johnson v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2012)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Stephen Mabosi (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1996)
  • Sukutoni Ali v Augustine Kapkutongongo and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2012)
  • Kiska Ltd v De Angelis [1969] EA 6
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.