Tushabe Chris v Cooperative Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2018)

Supreme Court · [2025] UGSC 35 · 2025 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second civil appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal upholding a High Court award of general damages and interest in a bank-customer dispute.

Decision

Appeal substantially dismissed; general damages enhanced from UGX 15,000,000 to UGX 300,000,000 with interest at court rate from the date of judgment.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 2 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

On a second appeal from a bank-customer dispute, the Supreme Court (majority) held that a second appellate court may interfere with a concurrent damages award only where the trial court applied a wrong principle or the award was outrageously high or ridiculously low. Finding the UGX 15,000,000 general damages inordinately low given the appellant was deprived of the use of his money while UGX 1.4 billion of security was tied up, it substituted an award of UGX 300,000,000 with interest at court rate from judgment. It upheld the order that 18% interest on the conceded counterclaim ran from 19 May 1999 and declined to disturb the costs awarded below. Chibita JSC dissented, finding fraud that voided the overdraft and consent.

Facts

The appellant, a Kasese coffee businessman, held a current account and an overdraft facility with the respondent bank. He discovered irregular and unauthorised entries on his account and, in 2000, sued the bank for special and general damages and interest; the bank counterclaimed. Before trial the parties consented to adjusting the account by crediting UGX 580,923,813 and to judgment for the bank of UGX 96,096,307. Three residual issues were referred to trial: interest on the bank's sum, the appellant's entitlement to general damages, and costs. The High Court awarded the appellant UGX 15,000,000 general damages for breach of the banker's duty, awarded the bank 18% interest on its sum from 19 May 1999 (the date the bank closed), and gave costs to the appellant. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal with costs. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the quantum of general damages, the commencement date of the interest on the counterclaim sum, and the costs award against him.

Issues

Whether the Justices of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge's award of general damages of UGX 15,000,000 to the appellant.
Whether the Justices of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge's finding that 18% interest on the decretal sum ran from May 1999 when the respondent bank was in liquidation.
Whether the Justices of Appeal erred in awarding the respondent the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Appeal fails save for the assessment and award of general damages.
The lower courts' award of general damages of UGX 15,000,000 is set aside and substituted with enhanced general damages of UGX 300,000,000, with interest at court rate from the date of judgment.
The lower courts' orders on costs and on interest on the appellant's payment of UGX 96,096,307 to the respondent, including the dates interest started running, are upheld.
Each party to meet its own costs in the Supreme Court.

Key headnotes

Damages — General Damages — Appellate Interference with Quantum

A second appellate court will interfere with a concurrent award of general damages only where the first appellate court, on fresh scrutiny, ought to have found that the trial court applied a wrong principle, took into account an irrelevant factor, omitted a relevant one, or that the award was so inordinately low (or outrageously high) as to be a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage.

Damages — General vs Special Damages — Loss of Profit and Quantifiable Loss

Losses capable of precise quantification, such as loss of profit and out-of-pocket expenses, must be specifically pleaded and proved as special damages and cannot be recovered under the head of general damages.

Banking — Banker's Duty — Damages for Breach and Deprivation of Use of Funds

A bank owes its customer a fiduciary and contractual duty to act in the customer's best interests with reasonable care and skill; where the bank's wrongful entries deprive the customer of the use of his money while his security remains tied up, the breach warrants enhanced and substantial general damages rather than a nominal award.

Civil Procedure — Interest — Commencement Date for Special and General Damages

Under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, interest on special damages runs from the date of loss and interest on general damages runs from the date of judgment; where a sum was admitted as due rather than ascertained at trial, interest may properly run from the date the sum fell due.

Civil Procedure — Costs — Costs Follow the Event

Under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act costs are discretionary and ordinarily follow the event; an appellate court will not interfere with a costs award against an unsuccessful party absent a demonstration that the discretion was exercised on a wrong principle.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Grounds Not Raised in the Memorandum of Appeal

A matter not raised in the memorandum of appeal before the Court of Appeal cannot, by reason of Rule 102(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, be raised and pursued on a further appeal.

Legislation cited (6)

Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.26
Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.27(1)
Financial Institutions Act 1993 Cap 54 s.29(2)
Court of Appeal Rules r.102(a)
Constitution of Uganda art.26
Constitution of Uganda art.28

Cases cited (32)

Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
Fr. Narsensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tibegaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
Hon. Gitobu Imanyara & 2 others V Attorney General [2015] eKLR, Kenya CACA No. 98 of 2014
Executive Director NEMA v Solid State Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2015)
Frederick Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
Omuyokol Akol Jackson v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2012)
Impressa Infortunato Federici v Irene Nabwire (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
Attorney General & Uganda Law Society v James Mark Kamoga & James Kamala (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
Green Pastures Ltd Vs The Cooperative Bank Ltd in Liquidation MA No. 172 of 2015
Attorney General v David Tinyefuza (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
Twinobusingye Severino v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 47 of 2011)
Stroms Vs Hutchson [1905] AC 515
Daramshi Vs Karsan [1974] 1 EA 41
Johnson and Another Vs Agnew [1979] 1 ALL ER 883
Frederick Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
NSSF & Anor v Alcon International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009)
Farm International Ltd & Ahmed Farah v Mohamed Hamid Farah (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1993)
Hilda Wilson Namusoke & 3 Others v Owalla Homes Enterprises E.A Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2017)
Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340
Active Auto Mobile Spares Ltd v Crane Bank Ltd & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2001)
Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
Banex Ltd v Gold Trust Bank (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1995)
Stanbic Bank Uganda v Uganda Crocs Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2004)
Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
Uganda Revenue Authority v Steven Mabosi (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1995)
Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995)
Hadley vs. Baxendale (1843-60) ALL ER rep. 461
Barclays Bank Versus Quincecare Ltd and Another (1992) 4 ALL ER 331
Lipkin Gorman vs. Karpnale Ltd [1992] 4 ALL ER 409
Wilson vs. United Counties Bank Ltd [1918-19] ALL ER Rep 1035
Patel vs. Grindlays Bank Ltd [1969] EA 76
Kpohraror vs. Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 ALL ER 119

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.