Wakilii

Aaron Kasingye v Alice Nviiri Namubiru (Civil Suit No. 342 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 444 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money had and received, heard ex-parte following defendant's failure to file defence
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff for recovery of UGX 223,955,208 with interest at 20% per annum from 2016 until payment in full, plus costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 High Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover UGX 223,955,208 as money had and received, rejecting the constructive trust argument. The court found that the defendant enriched herself from funds remitted by the plaintiff for land purchase without providing proof of purchase or accountability. The claim was quasi-contractual in nature seeking restitution where equity and good conscience require it. Interest at 20% per annum was awarded from 2016 until payment in full.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff for recovery of UGX 223,955,208 with interest at 20% per annum from 2016 until payment in full, plus costs

Facts

The plaintiff, residing and working abroad, remitted UGX 223,955,208 to the defendant between 2016 and 2023 for purchase of various pieces of land in Uganda (32 acres at Ndese, 2 acres in Katosi, 2 acres in Kyabakadde, and over 11 acres in Zirobwe). The defendant claimed to have purchased land on the plaintiff's behalf but failed to provide certificates of title or sale agreements despite repeated requests. When the plaintiff visited Uganda to inspect the properties, the defendant avoided him, claiming she was out of the country. The defendant was served with summons but failed to file a defence within the prescribed time. The matter proceeded ex-parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant breached the trust relationship between the plaintiff and defendant
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover money advanced to the defendant
  3. What remedies are available to the plaintiff

Orders

  • The defendant to pay the plaintiff the total amount of the remittances of UGX 223,955,208 that was money had and received by the defendant for the benefit of the plaintiff.
  • Interest of 20% per annum is awarded on the above amount from 2016 until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Money Had and Received — Quasi-Contractual Remedy — Elements of the Claim
For a successful claim for money had and received, the plaintiff must prove that: (a) the defendant has or had possession of money; and (b) the money belongs to the plaintiff in equity and good conscience. The claim seeks to restore money where equity and good conscience require restitution, is not premised on wrongdoing, and seeks to prevent unconscionable loss to the payer and unjust enrichment of the recipient.
Money Had and Received — Constructive Trust Distinguished
A claim for money had and received is not dependent on establishing a constructive trust. Where a plaintiff has not adduced evidence that the defendant holds title to property for his benefit but only claims the defendant purported to purchase property on his behalf, and there has been a failure of consideration, the appropriate remedy is restitution for money had and received rather than enforcement of a constructive trust.
Money Had and Received — Quasi-Contractual Nature — Writing Requirement Inapplicable
A claim for money had and received is quasi-contractual in nature and is a cause of action for a debt not evidenced by a written contract between the parties. The requirement under the Contracts Act 2010 that contracts exceeding twenty-five currency points (UGX 500,000) must be in writing does not apply to claims for money had and received.
Ex-Parte Proceedings — Admission by Failure to File Defence
Where a defendant is served with summons to file a defence but fails to do so within the prescribed time, every allegation of fact in the plaint is deemed admitted. The plaintiff's evidence stands uncontroverted and, once a prima facie case is established, judgment must be entered in favour of the plaintiff.
Damages — General Damages for Delay in Payment of Debt — No Presumption of Loss
Common law does not award general damages for delay in payment of a debt beyond the date when it is contractually due. The common law does not assume that delay in payment of a debt will of itself cause damage; loss must be proved. General damages for delay are awarded only in special circumstances where the loss did not arise from the ordinary course of things and only for such losses of which the defendant had actual knowledge.
Interest — Commercial Transactions — Rate Determination
Where interest was not agreed upon by the parties, the court should award interest that is just and reasonable, taking into account the ever rising inflation and drastic depreciation of the currency. In commercial transactions, interest at 20% per annum may be awarded to insulate the plaintiff against economic vagaries and inflation from the date of the transaction until payment in full.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (11)

  • Yoswa Kityo v Eriya Kaddu [1982] HCB 58
  • Paragon Finance v D B Thakerar & Co [1999] 1 All ER 400
  • Nakate Halima v Farming Consultant and Management Company Ltd (FACOM) & 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 499 of 2019)
  • Pamela Sabina Mbabazi v Henry Bazira (CACA No. 44 of 2004)
  • Gloria Kubajo & Another v Francis Drate (HCCS No. 0889 of 2020)
  • Pamela Sabina Mbabazi v Henry Bazira (CACA 44 of 2004) [2005] KALR 412
  • Storms v Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • Katkar Hanumant v Miracle Motors Co Limited (Civil Suit No. 800 of 2018)
  • President of India v La Pintada Compagnia Navigacia SA [1985] AC 104
  • Hungerfords v Walker (1989) 171 CLR 125
  • Kinyera v The Management Committee of Laroo Boarding Primary School (Civil Suit No. 099 of 2013)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Aaron Kasingye v Alice Nviiri Namubiru (Civil Suit No. 342 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 444 (30 December 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.