Wakilii

Ahmed Dubow Hudey and Another v Kotecha Narendra Narandas and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 196 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 226 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Miscellaneous application seeking order to reverse bank deposit from 1st Respondent's account back to Applicant's account
Decision
Application granted; bank ordered to reverse deposit of UGX 300,000,000 to Applicant's account within 7 days

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

Held that where parties conducted business on a trust-based model involving deposits for supply of general merchandise, and the supplier absconded without supplying goods or returning the deposit, the court may exercise inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to order reversal of the deposit. The conduct of the parties gave rise to an implied contract for supply of goods. Where the 1st Respondent failed to supply goods worth UGX 300,000,000 and fled the jurisdiction, the court ordered the bank to transfer the deposit back to the Applicant's account.

Outcome

Application granted; bank ordered to reverse deposit of UGX 300,000,000 to Applicant's account within 7 days

Facts

The Applicants and 1st Respondent were business associates. The 1st Applicant would deposit money into the 1st Respondent's account held with Equity Bank, and the 1st Respondent would supply general merchandise for sale in Sudan. Communication was via WhatsApp. Between 21st and 28th March 2025, the 1st Applicant deposited UGX 2,260,000,000 in various transactions. The last deposit of UGX 300,000,000 was made on 28th March 2025 for supply of goods. The 1st Respondent never supplied the goods and disappeared. The Applicants discovered the 1st Respondent had fled the country. Police and Financial Intelligence Authority investigations confirmed the 1st Respondent had left Uganda on a one-way ticket, his shop was closed, and the UGX 300,000,000 remained in his account. The 1st Respondent did not respond to substituted service and filed no defence.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application raises sufficient grounds to have the money redirected back to the 1st Applicant's account?
  2. What remedies are available?

Orders

  • An order directing the 2nd Respondent to transfer the deposit of UGX 300,000,000 made by the 1st Applicant into account No. 1038101904287 held by the 1st Respondent on 28th March 2025 to account No. 1008103297205 held by the 1st Applicant within 7 days from date of Court Order.
  • Costs to be paid to the 1st Applicant by the 1st Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation — Implied Contracts — Conduct of Parties
A contract may be implied from the conduct of the parties. Where parties engage in repeated transactions involving deposits for supply of goods, and the pattern of conduct demonstrates mutual intention to be legally bound, a valid contractual relationship exists even in the absence of written agreement.
Commercial Law — Trade Practices — Trust-Based Business Models — Judicial Notice
Courts may take judicial notice of established commercial practices in specific trading areas. In Arua Park and Kikuubo, trust-based supply relationships where buyers transfer money directly to suppliers' accounts and suppliers load goods without simultaneous exchange constitute a recognised business model, and remedies must be suited to this unique commercial reality rather than textbook formulations.
Contract Law — Breach — Failure of Consideration — Absconding Supplier
Where a supplier receives payment for goods, fails to supply the goods, and absconds from the jurisdiction with evidence of planned flight and no forwarding address, this constitutes breach of contract and total failure of consideration entitling the buyer to recovery of the deposit.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Section 98 Civil Procedure Act — Reversal of Bank Deposits
The court's inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act extend to ordering a bank to reverse a deposit from one account holder to another where there is established breach of contract, failure of consideration, and the deposit remains in the account. Such orders meet the ends of justice where the defaulting party has absconded and traditional remedies would be ineffective.
Banking & Finance — Bank as Nominal Party — Orders Against Banks
A bank may be joined as a nominal respondent in proceedings seeking reversal of deposits between account holders. Where the bank is not privy to the underlying transaction and no liability is alleged against it, the bank's role is purely facilitative in executing court orders directing transfer of funds.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Unrebutted Averments — Effect
Facts stated in an affidavit, if not denied or countered by evidence from the other side, are accepted as true by the court. Where a respondent is served by substituted service but files no reply and is not represented, the applicant's affidavit evidence stands unrebutted and may be accepted on a balance of probabilities.

Legislation cited (6)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ahmed Dubow Hudey and Another v Kotecha Narendra Narandas and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 196 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 226 (15 December 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.