Wakilii

A.K.T Project Management Limited & 2 Others v DFCU Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2046 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 248 · 2024 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for discovery and inspection of documents arising out of Civil Suit No. 397 of 2020
Decision
Application partly allowed with costs to respondent; respondent to provide certified documents upon payment of bank charges

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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

Court partly allowed application for discovery. Respondent ordered to provide certified copies of loan documents to applicants upon payment of standard bank charges. Application deemed unnecessary as some documents already on record and no evidence that applicants previously requested all documents sought or paid requisite fees. Costs awarded to respondent.

Outcome

Application partly allowed with costs to respondent; respondent to provide certified documents upon payment of bank charges

Facts

The 1st Applicant (A.K.T Project Management Ltd) obtained loans from Crane Bank (later acquired by DFCU Bank) in 2012 totalling USD 1,400,000 and UGX 1,400,000,000, secured by a debenture and charge over property. After the managing director's death, the 2nd Applicant as administratrix and new managing director alleged she was coerced into acknowledging an outstanding sum of USD 2,250,000 as a new loan in 2013. Applicants filed Civil Suit No. 397 of 2020 challenging the loans' legality. They then sought discovery of various loan documents, including application forms, offer letters, statements, Key Fact Documents, cheques, deposit slips, and evidence of asset disposal. Respondent acknowledged having documents but stated they were available upon payment of standard bank charges and that some had been attached to its amended written statement of defence.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court should grant an order for discovery of the documents?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Respondent shall avail the Applicants with certified copies of the documents as sought in this application, upon payment of the requisite charges/fees as per the Respondent's internal policies and practices.
  • Costs of this application are awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Discovery — Prerequisites for Grant of Discovery Order
An order for discovery requires: (1) relevancy and materiality of documents; (2) documents not otherwise privileged or protected by law; (3) documents in the respondent's possession, custody, control or power; and (4) attempts to obtain the same voluntarily were futile.
Discovery — Prior Request Requirement
A party seeking production of documents should first attempt to obtain the adversary's voluntary cooperation by serving a notice to produce documents, and only upon failure to obtain voluntary cooperation may discovery be sought, with a copy of the original request attached to the application.
Discovery — Necessity and Proportionality
An order for discovery is discretionary and a fundamental consideration for its issuance is that the order must be necessary. In exercising discretion, the court will have regard to proportionality to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense outweighs its likely benefit.
Bank Documents — Customer Access and Charges
It is standard bank practice that if a party requests documents in respect of their account, they incur a charge to access the same. Where documents are requested during legal proceedings but the party has not previously requested them through normal banking channels or paid the requisite fees, the court may order production upon payment of standard bank charges.
Documentary Evidence — Certification Requirement
Documents attached to pleadings that are not certified copies cannot be tendered in as evidence during trial under the Evidence Act and the Evidence (Bankers' Books) Act, requiring parties to obtain certified copies for use at trial.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (7)

  • Simbamanyo Estates Ltd and Peter Kamya v Equity Bank Uganda Ltd and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 583 of 2022)
  • Angubua Peter v Housing Finance Bank Ltd and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 434 of 2022)
  • Oluoch v Charagu [2003] 2 EA 649
  • Dresdner Bank AG v Sango Bay Estates Ltd (No.3) [1971] EA 326
  • Patricia Mutesi v Attorney General (HCMA No. 912 of 2016)
  • John Katto v Muhlbauer A.G and Another (HCMA No. 175 of 2011)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

A.K.T Project Management Limited & 2 Others v DFCU Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2046 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 248 (21 June 2024)
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.