Wakilii

Balintuma v Dr. Handel Leslie (CIVIL SUIT No. 193 OF 2013)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 58 · 2017 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money lent - defendant raised preliminary objection on limitation
Decision
Suit dismissed as statute barred and based on illegal contract

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 the plaintiff was holding out as a money lender as he had advanced multiple loans with security and interest provisions. Under section 19(1) of the Money Lenders Act, proceedings for recovery must be commenced within 12 months from when the cause of action accrued. The cause of action arose on 2 May 2012 and the suit was filed on 28 June 2013, outside the limitation period. No exemption was pleaded. Additionally, the loan agreement was illegal as the plaintiff carried on money lending business without a licence contrary to section 2(4)(b) of the Act.

Outcome

Suit dismissed as statute barred and based on illegal contract

Facts

The plaintiff sued the defendant for recovery of money lent under a loan agreement executed on 2 March 2012, under which the defendant was to settle the indebtedness by 2 May 2012. The plaintiff described the loans as short-term friendly credit loans. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the suit was statute barred under the Money Lenders Act. Evidence showed that the plaintiff was the General Manager of a money lending firm and had advanced multiple loans to the defendant totalling UGX 91,750,000, UGX 104,512,500, and UGX 28,500,500, separate from the claim in this suit. The loan agreement included provisions for security and interest. The suit was filed on 28 June 2013, more than 12 months after the cause of action arose on 2 May 2012. The plaintiff had no money lender's licence.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff was a money lender or holding out as a money lender and thus bound by the Money Lenders Act.
  2. Whether the suit was statute barred under section 19(1) of the Money Lenders Act for being filed after the prescribed 12-month limitation period.
  3. Whether the loan agreement was illegal for being made without a money lender's licence.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Money Lending — Definition of Money Lender — Holding Out
A person who advances multiple loans with provisions for security and interest, and who is willing to lend money to all and sundry, is holding out as a money lender within the meaning of section 1(h) of the Money Lenders Act Cap. 273, regardless of whether he describes the loans as friendly loans.
Money Lending — Limitation — Section 19(1) Money Lenders Act
Under section 19(1) of the Money Lenders Act, no proceedings shall lie for the recovery by a money lender of any money lent unless the proceedings are commenced before the expiration of twelve months from the date on which the cause of action accrued.
Limitation — Pleading Exemption — Order 7 Rule 6 CPR
Where a suit is instituted after the expiration of the period prescribed by the law of limitation, the plaint must show the grounds upon which exemption from the law is claimed, failing which the suit is liable to be struck out.
Money Lending — Unlicensed Money Lending — Illegal Contracts
A contract for the lending of money entered into by a person carrying on business as a money lender without a proper money lender's licence is illegal under section 2(4)(b) of the Money Lenders Act and cannot found a cause of action.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (2)

  • Nabisere Geraldine v Mutebi (High Court Civil Suit No. 565 of 2012)
  • Jamba Soita Ali v David Sallam (High Court Civil Suit No. 400 of 2005)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Balintuma v Dr. Handel Leslie (CIVIL SUIT No. 193 OF 2013) [2017] UGHCCD 58 (15 February 2017)
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.