Wakilii

Absa Bank Uganda Limited v Talpa Solutions Limited and 3 Others [2025] UGCOMMC 553

High Court · 2025 Judgment for Counterclaimant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Counterclaim for recovery of money paid under mistake, heard ex parte after counterdefendants failed to appear
Decision
Counterdefendants ordered to pay USD 218,733 jointly and severally with interest and costs

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 court held that the counterdefendants were unjustly enriched when they received and utilised USD 218,733 erroneously credited to their accounts due to a banking system error. The enrichment was at the counterclaimant bank's expense, without consideration, and retention was unjust. The court applied the three-element test for unjust enrichment: enrichment of the defendant, at the plaintiff's expense, and unjust retention. Restitution was ordered for the full amount utilised, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing the counterclaim.

Outcome

Counterdefendants ordered to pay USD 218,733 jointly and severally with interest and costs

Facts

On 9 June 2022, a customer of Absa Bank Uganda Limited initiated an online transfer of UGX 6,000,000 to convert to USD for deposit into the second counterdefendant's account. Due to a system error, the platform failed to convert the currency and instead erroneously credited USD 6,000,000 to the second counterdefendant's account on 10 June 2022. Between 10 and 13 June 2022, the second counterdefendant transferred portions of the funds to the other counterdefendants and two additional parties. The recipients included the first counterdefendant (USD 110,839.10), third counterdefendant (USD 80,500), fourth counterdefendant (USD 108,500), and two others. The counterdefendants utilised USD 218,833 of the erroneously credited funds. The bank recovered USD 5,779,756.09 but sought restitution for the utilised amount. Evidence showed familial and corporate relationships among the counterdefendants, suggesting a concerted scheme to redistribute the funds. The counterdefendants failed to appear at trial despite proper service.

Issues

  1. Whether the Counter Defendants were unjustly enriched by monies of the Counter Claimant paid to and retained by them out of USD 6,000,000.
  2. Whether the Counter Claimant is entitled to restitution and/or remedies sought in the Counter Claim.

Orders

  • The Counter Claimant is entitled to recover USD 218,733 from the Counter Defendants, jointly and severally.
  • Interest awarded at 8% per annum on the principal sum from the date of filing the counterclaim until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Counterclaimant.

Rules and key headnotes

Restitution — Unjust Enrichment — Three-Element Test
For a claim in unjust enrichment to succeed, three elements must be established: first, the defendant must have been enriched by receipt of a benefit; secondly, that benefit must have been gained at the plaintiff's expense; and thirdly, it would be unjust to allow the defendant to retain that benefit.
Banking — Mistaken Payment — Recoverability
A mistaken payment is recoverable unless the recipient can show that they gave value for it or changed their position in good faith. Where funds are erroneously credited to a bank account due to a system malfunction and no consideration is provided, the bank is entitled to restitution.
Restitution — Enrichment at Claimant's Expense — Indirect Recipients
Where parties have not dealt directly with one another but the defendant has received a benefit from the claimant through an intermediary, a claim for unjust enrichment may lie if the link between the claimant's loss and the defendant's gain is sufficiently direct and the enrichment is traceable.
Evidence — Ex Parte Proceedings — Unproven Pleadings
Pleadings contain averments, and until they are proved or disproved, or are admitted by the adversary, they are not evidence and no final decision can be founded upon them. Where a party fails to appear to give evidence in support of their defence, their pleadings remain mere averments and not evidence.
Restitution — Interest on Restitutionary Awards
In determining a just and reasonable rate of interest on a restitutionary award, courts take into account the ever-rising inflation and drastic depreciation of the currency, awarding such rate as would insulate the plaintiff against economic vagaries while not neglecting the prevailing economic value of money.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (5)

  • Peter Jogo Tabu T/A Ayume, Jogoo, Tabu & Co Advocates v Registered Trustees of the Church of the Province of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 0016 of 2016)
  • Fibrosa Spolka Akycyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Barbour, Limited [1943] AC 32
  • The Commissioner for Her Majesty's Revenue Customs v The Investment Trust Companies (in liquidation) [2017] UKSC 29
  • Kinyera v Management Committee of Laroo Building Primary School (HCCS No. 099 of 2013)
  • Jennifer Behange, Rwanyindo Aurelia, Paul Bagenzi v School Outfitter (U) Limited (CACA No. 53 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Absa Bank Uganda Limited v Talpa Solutions Limited and 3 Others 2025 UGCommC 553 (2 June 2025)
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.