Wakilii

Abdul Basit Sengooba and 4 Ors v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 184 of 2001)

High Court · [2006] UGCOMMC 31 · 2006 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for refund of purchase price and damages
Decision
Suit dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs had no cause of action

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

The High Court dismissed a claim by five children for refund of purchase price paid for property bought at auction, holding that the children did not enter into the contract of sale. The father signed the agreement on his own behalf intending to transfer beneficial interest to his children later. The minors had no contractual obligations and therefore no cause of action against the bank.

Outcome

Suit dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs had no cause of action

Facts

The plaintiffs, five children of Haji Suleman Lule, sued the defendant bank for refund of UGX 28,000,000 allegedly paid in 1996 for property advertised for sale by the bank through auctioneers. The father instructed his friend Haji Kaddu Kiberu to identify and purchase property for his minor children. Kiberu successfully bid for the property and paid the purchase price. An agreement was signed by the father on behalf of the children. The bank later refused to transfer the property and resold it to another person. The bank denied any valid sale took place and pleaded that if it did, the auctioneers acted contrary to instructions.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit contract between the parties is valid
  2. Whether Kiranda and Kabuuka t/a Speedway Auctioneers sold the suit property to the plaintiffs and if so whether the defendant is vicariously liable
  3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought in the plaint

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Capacity to Contract — Minors — Who Bears Contractual Obligations
Where a parent signs a contract of sale on behalf of minor children without the minors themselves signing, the contractual obligations fall on the parent as the actual contracting party, not the minors, and the minors acquire no independent cause of action under that contract.
Locus Standi — Proprietary Interest — Cause of Action
A plaintiff must demonstrate a proprietary interest or direct contractual relationship to establish a cause of action. Where children are named as buyers but their father actually entered the contract intending to transfer beneficial interest later, the children have no cause of action for breach of that contract.
Costs — Discretion — Suits by Minors
Under Section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has discretion not to award costs against minors or young persons even where their suit is dismissed.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (1)

  • Davies v Beynon-Harris [1931] 47 TLR 424

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Abdul Basit Sengooba and 4 Ors v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 184 of 2001) [2006] UGCommC 31 (5 July 2006)
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.