Wakilii

Premchandra Shenoi and Anor v Maximov Oleg Petrovich [2005] UGSC 15

Supreme Court · 2005 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second civil appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision of the Court of Appeal confirming, in part, a High Court judgment for the respondent.
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal's order that the appellants jointly refund US$184,000 as money had and received, with interest at 20% per annum and costs, stands.

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 concurrent findings that the 1st appellant authored the disputed fax, holding that sections 45, 66 and 72 of the Evidence Act do not exclude other circumstantial evidence of authorship. The appellants having admitted receiving US$200,000, the sum (less US$26,000 already remitted) was refundable as money had and received, and both appellants were jointly liable. The award of interest is discretionary; because the appellants had received and used the money for a commercial transaction, the Court of Appeal's substituted rate of 20% per annum was more appropriate than the trial court's 6%.

Facts

The respondent, a Russian businessman, came to Uganda to invest in mining and entered a joint venture (Exhibit PE1) with the 1st appellant's company, Shivam Ltd (later Shivam MKP Ltd). The 2nd participants were to deposit US$42,000, refundable on termination. The respondent remitted US$20,000, then, after receiving a fax (Exhibit PE.8) describing strong business prospects and requesting US$200,000, remitted a further US$200,000 to the company's Standard Chartered Bank account, of which the 1st appellant was a signatory. US$150,000 was withdrawn and converted to shillings. Communication broke down and the respondent received only US$26,000 back. The appellants' advocates had offered US$161,623 in settlement, marked without prejudice. The company was registered in the names of the 1st appellant and his wife, and the respondent was never made a shareholder. The respondent sued for the money, misrepresentation and breach of contract.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the finding that the 1st appellant was the author of the disputed fax (Exhibit PE.8).
  2. Whether the appellants admitted receipt of US$200,000 and an offer to pay US$161,623.
  3. Whether the US$200,000 was refundable as money had and received.
  4. Whether the 1st appellant was jointly liable to refund the money notwithstanding the separate legal personality of the 2nd appellant company.
  5. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in substituting an interest rate of 20% per annum for the 6% awarded by the trial court.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent in this Court and in the courts below.

Key headnotes

Evidence — Proof of disputed handwriting and authorship of a document — Whether sections 45, 66 and 72 of the Evidence Act are exhaustive
Sections 45, 66 and 72(1) of the Evidence Act do not exclude other kinds of evidence for proof of disputed handwriting or signature; a court may rely on circumstantial evidence and credibility findings to determine the authorship of a document in the absence of handwriting-expert opinion.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Departure of a party's evidence from his pleadings
Where a party's evidence departs from his or her pleadings, that departure is a good ground for rejecting the evidence.
Restitution — Money had and received — Obligation to refund money received to the use of another
Where one person receives money from another in circumstances such that he holds it to the use of that other, the law implies a promise, or imposes an obligation, on him to repay it, and the rightful owner may maintain an action for money had and received.
Company Law — Separate legal personality — Liability of a controlling director for sums received by the company
Notwithstanding a company's separate legal personality, a director who is the sole signatory to and controller of the company's accounts and who personally received and dealt with money paid to the company may be held jointly liable with the company to refund that money as money had and received.
Damages & Quantum — Award of interest — Discretion and appropriate rate where money used in a commercial transaction
An award of interest is a matter for the court's discretion, its basis being that the defendant has taken and used the plaintiff's money and benefited; where the money was received for a commercial transaction, the court rate of 6% is inappropriate and a commercial rate (here 20% per annum) may properly be awarded.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Evidence Act s.45
  • Evidence Act s.66
  • Evidence Act s.72(1)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court rule 93

Cases cited (7)

  • A.W. Biteremo v Damascus Munyanda (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1991)
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)
  • Salomon v Salomon & Co [1897] AC 22
  • Nurdin Bandali v Lombank Tanganyika Ltd (1963) EA 304
  • Century Automobiles Ltd v Hutchings Biemer Ltd (1965) EA 304
  • Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995)
  • Harbutt's Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank and Pump Co Ltd [1970] 1 QB 447
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.