Wakilii

Active Automobile Spares Limited v Crane Bank Limited and Another (Civil Appeal 63 of 2000)

Court of Appeal · [2001] UGCA 29 · 2001 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from High Court judgment dismissing claim against first respondent; second respondent cross-appealed
Decision
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; first respondent bank not liable; second respondent wholly liable to appellant

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 of Appeal dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal, upholding the High Court finding that the first respondent bank was not liable to refund US$97,000. The appellant had purchased dollars from the bank, not requested a money transfer, and the completed banking transaction ended when the appellant's employee took away the dollars. The later transaction, in which the second respondent collected and sold the dollars, occurred without the bank's knowledge and was a frolic of the second respondent's own; the bank could not be held vicariously liable. The second respondent was wholly liable to the appellant for the money.

Outcome

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; first respondent bank not liable; second respondent wholly liable to appellant

Facts

On 18 June 1998 the appellant's employee (PW2) deposited a Gold Trust Bank draft of shs.120,764,562 with the first respondent bank, allegedly instructing it to transfer UK £60,382 to a London company. The next day the bank, saying it lacked sufficient pounds, gave PW2 US$97,000 which he took to the appellant's premises. That afternoon PW2 telephoned the second respondent, a bank forex manager, asking him to collect the dollars and send pounds instead. The second respondent collected the dollars, gave an acknowledgement on bank letterhead and a personal postdated cheque, then sold the dollars at Kikubo and deposited part of the proceeds with the bank. He was later arrested for fraud. Neither the pounds were sent nor the dollars returned. The bank denied knowledge of the second respondent's dealings after PW2 took away the dollars.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant ever requested the first respondent to transfer pound sterling on its behalf to a UK beneficiary.
  2. Whether the appellant received US$97,000 in consideration of a bank draft deposited with the first respondent.
  3. Whether the transactions between the second respondent and the appellant after the appellant received US$97,000 from the bank were binding on the bank.
  4. Whether the second respondent incurred any liability.
  5. Whether the trial court's order on costs was correct.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Cross-appeal dismissed.
  • The appellant and the cross-appellant (second respondent) to jointly and severally pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal.
  • In the High Court, the appellant to pay the first respondent's costs; as between the appellant and second respondent, each to bear own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Banking Transactions — Purchase of Foreign Currency — Completion of Transaction
Where a customer deposits a bank draft and receives foreign currency in exchange, the banking transaction is complete on delivery of the currency, and the bank incurs no obligation to transfer money abroad absent proof of a request following the prescribed foreign exchange procedure.
Vicarious Liability — Employer's Liability — Employee on a Frolic of His Own
An employer bank is not vicariously liable for the acts of an employee who deals with a customer outside the bank and without the bank's knowledge, as such conduct constitutes a frolic of the employee's own and falls outside the scope of employment.
Costs — Discretion of Court — Costs Follow the Event
The award of costs is entirely at the discretion of the court, and although costs generally follow the event, a court may order parties to bear their own costs where a party's own conduct contributed to the loss and it declined to sue those partly responsible.
Appeals — Duty of First Appellate Court — Re-appraisal of Evidence
A first appellate court has a duty to re-appraise all the evidence on record and reach its own conclusion as to whether the trial judge's findings can be supported.

Cases cited (1)

  • Peters v Sunday Post Ltd (1958) EA 424

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Active Automobile Spares Limited v Crane Bank Limited and Another (Civil Appeal 63 of 2000) [2001] UGCA 29 (18 September 2001)
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.