Wakilii

Active Automobile Spares Ltd v Crane Bank Ltd and Anor [2003] UGSC 32

Supreme Court · 2003 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second civil appeal from the Court of Appeal, which had upheld the High Court's dismissal of the appellant's suit against the first respondent bank.
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the appellant's claim for refund of US$97,000 from the bank failed.

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 Supreme Court dismissed the second appeal. It upheld the concurrent findings that the appellant never instructed the bank to transfer sterling to London, the appellant having failed to complete Form E and the required pre-shipment inspection documents. The bank's departure from its pleadings was a non-fatal irregularity, cured because the appellant raised no objection at trial or on first appeal. The sale of US$97,000 by the bank to the appellant, a non-authorised dealer, was illegal under section 1 of the Exchange Control Act. As the parties were in pari delicto and the appellant could not make out its claim without relying on the illegal transaction, the court would not order a refund.

Facts

On 18 June 1998 the appellant's employee deposited a Gold Trust Bank draft for Shs 120,764,562 with Crane Bank, intending the transfer of £60,382 to Agric Link Company in London to pay for imported spare parts. The bank lacked sufficient sterling, so the next day it provided US$97,000 in cash, which the employee took to the appellant's premises. The employee then telephoned the second respondent, the bank's Forex Manager, who collected the dollars, acknowledged receipt on bank letterhead and issued a personal cheque as guarantee. The second respondent sold the dollars to dealers in Kikubo and deposited shillings with the bank. No money was transferred to London and the dollars were never returned. The appellant did not complete Form E or obtain a Clean Report of Findings as required for importation. The appellant sued the bank and the second respondent jointly; the trial court found only the second respondent liable, a finding upheld on first appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial court's finding that the appellant gave no instructions to the bank to transfer sterling to London.
  2. Whether the bank's departure from its admissions in the written statement of defence prejudiced the appellant.
  3. Whether the foreign-exchange transaction contravened the Exchange Control Act and associated regulations, and if so whether the appellant could recover its money.
  4. Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and the Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the first respondent in the Supreme Court and in the courts below.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Duty of the first appellate court to re-evaluate evidence
A first appellate court is under a duty to reappraise all the evidence on record and draw its own conclusions of fact, while bearing in mind that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses and making due allowance in that respect.
Civil Procedure — Second appeals — Interference with concurrent findings of fact
A second appellate court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact only in exceptional cases, and only where the first appellate court failed to re-evaluate the evidence and reach its own conclusions as required.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Departure from pleadings — When not fatal
A party's departure from its pleadings is an irregularity that is not fatal where it causes no prejudice and the opposing party did not object to it at the commencement of, or during, the trial or on first appeal.
Contract Law — Illegality — Ex turpi causa non oritur actio — Parties in pari delicto
A court will not enforce an illegal transaction where the party seeking relief is implicated in the illegality and cannot make out its case otherwise than through the medium of, and by aid of, that illegal transaction.
Banking & Finance — Exchange control — Dealing in foreign currency with a non-authorised dealer
Under section 1 of the Exchange Control Act, no person other than an authorised dealer may, without the Minister's permission, buy, hold or be sold foreign currency; the sale of foreign currency by a bank to a person who is not an authorised dealer is an illegal transaction.

Legislation cited (13)

  • Supreme Court Rules r.81
  • Supreme Court Rules r.29(1)
  • Court of Appeal Rules 1996 r.29(1)(a)
  • Exchange Control Act (Cap 158) s.1
  • Exchange Control Act (Cap 158) Fourth Schedule Part II para.3
  • Exchange Control (Foreign Bureaux) Order 1991 Order 4
  • Exchange Control (Foreign Bureaux) Order 1991 Order 18
  • Exchange Control (Foreign Bureaux) Order 1991 Order 19
  • Exchange Control (Foreign Bureaux) Order 1991 Order 21
  • Exchange Control (Foreign Bureaux) Order 1991 Order 35(1) and (2)
  • Bank of Uganda (Pre-shipment Inspection of Imports) Regulations 1982 reg.1
  • Bank of Uganda (Pre-shipment Inspection of Imports) Regulations 1982 reg.2
  • Bank of Uganda (Pre-shipment Inspection of Imports) Regulations 1982 reg.3

Cases cited (14)

  • Peters v Sunday Post Ltd (1958) EA 424
  • Selle and Another v Associated Motor Boat Co Ltd (1968) EA 123
  • Pandya v R (1957) EA 32
  • Okeno v Republic (1972) EA 32
  • Watt or Thomas v Thomas (1947) AC 484
  • Abdul Hameed Saif v Ali Mohamed Sholan (1955) 22 EACA 270
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
  • The Gannibantan (2) (1876). IPD
  • The Hontestroom ss vs. Durham Castle ss (1972) A.C
  • S.M Ruwala VS. R 1957) 570
  • Khatijab Jiwa Hashman v Zenab d/o Chandu Nanju (1960) EA 7
  • Scott v Brown, Doering, McNab & Co (1892) 2 QB 724
  • Taylor v Chester (1869) LR 4 QB 309
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.