Wakilii

Amit Jain v Hon. Lokii Peter Abrahams (Civil Suit No. 616 of 2014)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 95 · 2026 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money lent under a money lending agreement
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with recovery of outstanding loan amount, contractual 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 defendant breached a money lending agreement by failing to repay a loan of UGX 265,000,000. The plaintiff proved the existence of the loan through a signed agreement, hypothecated log book, and dishonoured cheques. The court awarded the outstanding balance of UGX 335,175,000 with contractual interest at 24% per annum from the date of filing suit until payment in full. General damages were denied as the interest award adequately compensated the plaintiff for being deprived of the use of his money.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with recovery of outstanding loan amount, contractual interest, and costs

Facts

The plaintiff operated a licensed money lending enterprise. On 22nd September 2012, the defendant borrowed UGX 265,000,000 to be repaid within nine months at 2% monthly interest. As security, the defendant hypothecated the log book to his motor vehicle. The defendant failed to repay by the due date of 22nd June 2013. He subsequently issued two cheques in January 2014, each for UGX 20,000,000, which were dishonoured. By September 2018, the plaintiff had recovered only UGX 91,817,000. The defendant denied borrowing the funds and claimed the contract was unilaterally altered by the plaintiff. The defendant failed to appear at trial to present his defence.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant borrowed the money as claimed by the plaintiff.
  2. Whether the defendant has breached the money lending agreement.
  3. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant.
  • UGX 335,175,000 awarded as the outstanding amount.
  • Interest thereon at the contractual rate of 24% per annum from 4th September 2014 until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Definition and Elements
A breach of contract occurs when a party neglects, refuses or fails to perform any part of its bargain or any term of the contract, written or oral, without a legitimate legal excuse.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Payment of Debt
The onus is on the party who alleges payment to prove the payment. When the existence of a debt is fully established by the evidence, the burden of proving that it has been extinguished by payment devolves upon the debtor who offers such defence to the claim of the creditor.
Contract Law — Interest — Contractual Rate
The contractual rate of interest will be awarded unless it violates public policy or usury laws. Courts should award interest that is just and reasonable, taking into account the ever rising inflation and drastic depreciation of the currency.
Contract Law — Damages — General Damages and Interest
Awarding a commercial rate of interest restores a lender to the position it would have enjoyed if the breach had not occurred. In such circumstances, an additional award of general damages would be tantamount to overcompensation, and therefore no additional general damages, unless proved, are to be presumed.
Evidence — Liquidated Claims — Proof Required
A liquidated claim is one for an amount in money based on an obligation to pay a sum agreed upon, or where the amount of money is ascertainable as a mere matter of calculation. Not only must it be specifically pleaded but it must also be strictly proved.
Civil Procedure — Closure of Defence Case — Non-Appearance
Where neither the defendant nor his counsel appears in court when the suit is called for hearing of the defence case, and there is no explanation for their absence, the court may invoke Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules and direct a closure of the defence case.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (19)

  • J.K. Patel v Spear Motors Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1991)
  • Protea Chemicals East Africa Limited v KAC Chemicals and Paints (U) Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 470 of 2016)
  • Borham-Carter v. Hyde Park Hotel [1948] 64 TLR
  • Masaka Municipal Council v. Semogerere [1998-2000] HCB 23
  • Musoke David v. Departed Asians Property Custodian Board [1990-1994] E.A. 219
  • Carmichael v. Caledonian Railway Co. (1870) 8 M (HL) 119
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 234 of 2011)
  • Kinyera v The Management Committee of Laroo Boarding Primary School (High Court Civil Suit No. 99 of 2013)
  • Storms v. Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • Kabona Brothers Agencies v. Uganda Metal Products & Enamelling Co Ltd [1981-1982] HCB 74
  • Kiwanuka Godfrey T/a Tasumi Auto Spares and Class mart v Arua District Local Government (High Court Civil Suit No. 186 of 2006)
  • Hungerfords v. Walker (1989) 171 CLR 125
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 13 of 1993)
  • Erukana Kuwe v Isaac Patrick Matovu and another (High Court Civil Suit No. 177 of 2003)
  • Hadley v. Baxendale (1894) 9 Exch 341
  • Charles Acire v M. Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Harriet Arinaitwe v Africana Clays Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 376 of 2013)
  • Spring Freight Logistics Limited v Amoo Holding International Limited and others (High Court Civil Suit No. 556 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Amit Jain v Hon. Lokii Peter Abrahams (Civil Suit No. 616 of 2014) [2026] UGCommC 95 (30 March 2026)
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.