Altimimi v Twinomugisha (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2000)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the award of shs.15,000,000 to the respondent. It held that the respondent failed to prove a cause of action: she did not establish any violated right, the contents of the police report were never produced, and the advocate's letter was not shown to be published or to have impaired her reputation. The court also dismissed the appellant's counter-claim, holding that a person who signs an entirely blank cheque does not 'issue' it within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act, and that a non-existent company (Tyresland) could not have ordered or received goods or incurred the alleged debt. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part; the respondent's suit and the appellant's counter-claim both dismissed; award of shs.15,000,000 set aside

Facts

The respondent's late husband was Chief Accountant of the appellant company and had a joint bank account with her. He obtained goods from the appellant and paid using cheques drawn on the joint account, asking the respondent to sign several blank cheques. After his death, the appellant's cashier completed and presented these cheques, which were dishonoured, leaving an account debit. The appellant reported the matter of bounced cheques to the police, partly to satisfy insurance requirements, and the respondent was called to the police, placed on bond and required to report repeatedly, though never charged in court or prosecuted. The appellant's advocates wrote to the respondent demanding payment of an alleged debt of shs.30,631,849 and threatening criminal reporting. The respondent sued for harassment, defamation and anguish; the appellant counter-claimed for the debt, alleging the respondent owned a company, Tyresland, which had obtained goods. It was common ground that no company by that name existed and that the respondent had signed blank cheques without knowing their use.

Issues

1. Whether the evidence adduced by the respondent disclosed and proved a cause of action against the appellant.
2. Whether the appellant's report to the police and the advocate's letter were false, malicious and defamatory of the respondent.
3. Whether the respondent's signing of blank cheques amounted to 'issuing' them within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act.
4. Whether the counter-claim for the alleged debt was proved to the required standard.

Orders

• Appeal allowed in part.
• The suit dismissed.
• The counter-claim dismissed.
• The award of shs.15,000,000 to the respondent set aside.
• Each party to bear its own costs in the Court of Appeal and the High Court.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Penal Code Act s.364(1)(b)
• Bills of Exchange Act s.2
• Constitution Article 50
• Constitution Article 29(2)(a)(b)

Cases cited (5)

• Pandya vs. R. (1957) EA.336
• Peters vs. Sunday Post (1958) EA 424
• Hernaman vs. Smith (1855) 10 Exh 659 at 666
• Cook vs. Gill (1873) Ln 8 CP107 at 116
• Auto Garage vs. Motokov (1971) EA.514 at 519 and 523

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• MKS Limited v Commissioner Land Registration and Others (Civil Suit No. 656 of 2020)
• Kibaaju V National Resistance Movement & 2 Ors (HCT-05-CV-CS-0096-2010)

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