Barclays Bank of Uganda Limited v Altaf Hussein (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2013)

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

On appeal from the Chief Magistrate's Court which had awarded special and general damages for delayed telegraphic transfer, the High Court found that both parties contributed to the loss: the bank acted dishonestly by promising a four-day transfer that was near impossible given international clearing requirements, while the customer voluntarily assumed risk by seeking such a short timeline. The Court applied the doctrine of voluntary assumption of risk, set aside the award of special damages entirely, reduced general damages from the trial court's award to UGX 2,500,000, denied interest, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed; special damages set aside; general damages reduced to UGX 2,500,000; no interest; each party to bear own costs

Facts

The Respondent customer received an offer of a 2% discount from Sadolin Paint on paint purchases at a negotiated exchange rate of UGX 2,050 to the dollar, provided payment of USD 50,000 reached Sadolin's Citi Bank account within seven working days from 16 October 2008. On 17 October 2008, the Respondent filled a telegraphic transfer form at the Appellant bank's Arua branch requesting transfer of USD 50,000 from his shilling account to Sadolin's dollar account, with the bank committing to complete the transfer within four working days. The Appellant's head office received the TT form and debited the Respondent's account on 22 October 2008, then sent the funds through its clearing house in New York. The money was eventually credited on 4 November 2008, thirteen working days after the initial instruction, exceeding the four-day commitment. Sadolin Paint withdrew its discount offer due to the delay. The Respondent sued for special damages of UGX 13,050,000 representing the lost discount, plus general damages, interest and costs. The Chief Magistrate found for the Respondent and awarded damages. The bank appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the Learned Trial Magistrate erred in law and fact when she found that the Appellant breached her duty or that she was negligent in her duty owed to the Respondent.
2. Whether the Trial Magistrate erred in law and fact when she found that the Respondent is entitled to special damages.
3. Whether the Trial Magistrate erred in law and fact in awarding exorbitant general damages which was unreasonable in the circumstances of this case.

Orders

• Special damages set aside and not awarded.
• General damages reduced to UGX 2,500,000.
• No interest awarded.
• Each party to bear its own costs for the appeal and in the lower court.

Rules and key headnotes

Cases cited (2)

• Father Nanensio Begumisa and 3 Others v Eric Tiberaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2004)
• F.K. Zabwe v Orient Bank and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)

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.

• Western Highland Creameries Limited and Another v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited (Civil Appeal 78 of 2014; Civil Appeal 79 of 2014)
• Tomusange v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 32 of 2023)

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