Ataco Freight Services Limited v Stanbic Bank (U) Limited (Civil Suit 471 of 2017)

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

Held that the transaction was a finance leasing facility under which the plaintiff selected the equipment and supplier. The plaintiff failed to prove that subsequent oral negotiations modified the written lease agreement. Oral evidence cannot contradict written contract terms absent fraud, misrepresentation, or other vitiating factors. Plaintiff's suit dismissed; counterclaim allowed for outstanding loan balance of UGX 1,051,788,630 with interest at 8% per annum.

Outcome

Plaintiff's suit dismissed with costs; counterclaimant awarded outstanding loan balance with interest and costs

Facts

Plaintiff, a freight forwarding company, entered a vehicle lease agreement with defendant bank to finance purchase of eight tractor trucks and eight semi-trailers from Foton East Africa Uganda Limited. Plaintiff alleged that defendant advised acceptance of lease from Foton and promised a buy-back agreement. After delivery, plaintiff claimed vehicles were defective and failed to perform, causing business losses. Plaintiff defaulted on loan repayments. In 2015, defendant restructured outstanding debt of USD 496,830.15 into fifty monthly instalments. Plaintiff continued to default. In September 2017, defendant repossessed and sold ten assets, recovering UGX 416,000,000. After deducting costs, balance of UGX 1,051,788,630 remained outstanding.

Issues

1. What was the nature of the transaction between the parties?
2. What was the role of the parties in the transaction?
3. What are the available remedies to the parties?

Orders

• Suit dismissed against the defendant with costs.
• Judgment entered against the counter-defendant for UGX 1,051,788,630 (Uganda Shillings One Billion Fifty One Million, Seven Hundred and Eighty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty only).
• Interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the principal sum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
• Costs of the counterclaim awarded to the counterclaimant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.91
• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.92
• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.101
• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.103
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.27(1)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.27(2)

Cases cited (9)

• Mohamed Roshan t/a Mohamed Roshan & Company v Santa Singh [1959] 1 EA 717
• William Kasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd (HCCS No. 1326 of 2000)
• Golf View Inn (U) Limited v Barclays Bank (U) Limited (HCCS No. 358 of 2009)
• Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (SCCA No. 28 of 1993) [1994] KALR 190
• Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Kalule Deo (CACA No. 278 of 2016)
• Nassolo Farida v DFCU Leasing Company Ltd (HCCS No. 536 of 2006)
• Shariff Osman v Haji Haruna Mulangwa (SCCA No. 38 of 1995) [1996] KALR 238
• Kamo Enterprises Limited v Krystalline Salt Limited (SCCA No. 8 of 2018)
• Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd (1981) HCB 35

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Ataco Freight Services Limited and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 0367 of 2025)

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