Wakilii

Apollo Musiimenta v Ngaruye Ruhindi Boniface (Civil Suit No. 0100 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 299 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit under summary procedure for recovery of loan amount
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff for recovery of the loan amount 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 plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that he advanced UGX 100,000,000 to the defendant under a written loan agreement. The defendant's assertion that the payment was for legal services contradicted the clear terms of the agreement, which stated 'hereby borrow'. The parol evidence rule excluded oral evidence contradicting the written agreement. The transaction was a private loan between parties known to each other, not commercial money lending requiring a licence. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the principal sum with interest at 8% per annum from judgment.

Outcome

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

Facts

On 1 October 2021, the plaintiff and defendant executed a written agreement titled 'Agreement for Borrowing Money' in which the defendant borrowed UGX 100,000,000 from the plaintiff. The agreement was drafted by the defendant, a lawyer, in his law firm. Both parties signed the agreement in the presence of witnesses. The plaintiff handed over the cash to the defendant. The agreement provided for repayment within 60 days interest-free, with interest of 10% per month accruing from 1 December 2021 if unpaid. The defendant failed to repay. The plaintiff issued a demand notice on 11 January 2022, which was not honoured. The defendant admitted signing the agreement but denied receiving the money, claiming the payment was for legal services he had rendered to the plaintiff in six pending matters.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff advanced the sum of UGX 100,000,000 to the Defendant?
  2. Whether the said advance was a loan or a payment for legal services?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant.
  • Defendant to pay UGX 100,000,000 being the loan amount due to the Plaintiff.
  • Interest at Court rate of 8% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Shifting of Evidential Burden
Where a plaintiff discharges the evidential burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that money was advanced under a loan agreement, the evidential burden (but not the legal burden) shifts to the defendant to prove the negative assertion that the money was not advanced.
Evidence — Parol Evidence Rule — Exclusion of Oral Evidence Contradicting Written Agreement
By virtue of sections 58 and 92 of the Evidence Act, oral evidence that contradicts the clear contents of a written agreement is excluded and inadmissible, unless an exception to the parol evidence rule applies.
Contract Law — Interpretation of Contracts — Literal Rule
The interpretation of words in a written contract shall be in accordance with their literal meaning unless there is an ambiguity, which must be resolved by looking at the factual background against which the document was made to establish the intention of the parties.
Evidence — Credibility of Witnesses — Grave Inconsistencies and Contradictions
Grave inconsistencies and contradictions in a witness's evidence, unless satisfactorily explained, will usually but not necessarily result in the evidence being rejected. Minor inconsistencies, unless they point to deliberate untruthfulness, will be ignored.
Contract Law — Money Lending — Private Loans Distinguished from Commercial Money Lending
There is nothing illegal about a private loan arrangement between persons known to each other. The Tier 4 Microfinance Institutions and Money Lenders Act 2016 applies only where the lender is a registered company licensed to lend money as a business. A person may lend money to another under a private agreement without a licence.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Court's Discretion to Fix Rate
Where no interest rate has been provided in an agreement or the rate is harsh and unconscionable, the court has discretion to fix the interest rate. Interest on a decretal sum runs at the court rate from the date of judgment until payment in full.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Costs Follow the Event
Costs of and incidental to all suits are in the discretion of the court. Ordinarily, costs follow the event. An appellate court should not interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion on costs unless the discretion has been exercised injudiciously or on wrong principles.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (15)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Apollo Musiimenta v Ngaruye Ruhindi Boniface (Civil Suit No. 0100 of 2022) [2025] UGCommC 299 (30 July 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.