Wakilii

Benon Musinguzi Bangizi v Elbueno Technologies Ltd (Civil Suit 2 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 978 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of debt, heard exparte after defendant failed to appear
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with recovery of debt, general damages, interest, and costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time 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

The High Court held that the defendant company was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of UGX 71,500,000 arising from a loan agreement dated 24 November 2021. The court found that a valid contract existed, evidenced by written agreements, postdated cheques, and subsequent acknowledgments of debt. The defendant's failure to appear at trial left the plaintiff's evidence unchallenged. The court rejected the defendant's contention that the plaintiff required a money lending licence, holding that individuals may lend to acquaintances and charge mutually agreed interest without being money lenders. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff with general damages and interest.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with recovery of debt, general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

On 24 November 2021, the plaintiff lent UGX 65,000,000 to the defendant company for execution of a road rehabilitation contract. The loan was to be repaid by 23 February 2022. The defendant issued seven postdated cheques which were dishonoured upon presentation. On 30 December 2022, the parties met and acknowledged the debt had risen to UGX 80,000,000 including 10% interest. The defendant paid UGX 25,000,000, leaving a balance of UGX 55,000,000 to be paid by 30 June 2023, failing which it would attract 10% interest per month. A further meeting on 3 July 2023 extended the repayment deadline to 18 August 2023 with the same interest terms. The defendant failed to pay the balance. By November 2023, the total debt claimed was UGX 71,500,000. The defendant did not appear at trial despite being served.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff to the tune of UGX 71,500,000.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The defendant pays to the plaintiff UGX 71,500,000.
  • The defendant pays general damages of UGX 5,000,000.
  • Interest on the above sums at 8% per annum from the date of judgment.
  • The defendant pays costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation — Written Contracts — Requirements under Contracts Act
A contract for a sum exceeding twenty-five currency points (UGX 500,000) must be in writing and satisfy three requirements: it must reasonably identify the subject matter, be sufficient to indicate that a contract exists, and state with reasonable certainty the material terms of the contract.
Contract Law — Interpretation — Intention of Parties — Conduct and Correspondence
To determine the intention of parties to enter into a binding agreement, it is necessary to look at the whole of the correspondence and conduct between the parties, including executed agreements, minutes of meetings, and security instruments such as cheques.
Contract Law — Breach — Failure to Perform Obligations
A breach of contract occurs where one or both parties fails to fulfil the obligations imposed by the contract. Where a party undertakes to pay a sum by a specified date and fails to do so without justification, that party is in breach of the undertaking.
Banking & Finance — Money Lending — Licensing Requirements — Private Loans Between Individuals
There is no law in Uganda that bars individuals from lending to their acquaintances, friends, or persons belonging to a group and charging mutually agreed interest on the loan. Charging interest per se does not constitute one into a money lender requiring a licence, provided the lender is not purporting to carry out a money lending business.
Civil Procedure — Exparte Proceedings — Burden of Proof
Even where a case is heard exparte due to the defendant's failure to appear, the plaintiff still bears the burden to prove the case on the balance of probabilities. The burden remains on the plaintiff to prove the case even if the case is heard on formal proof.
Tort Law — Damages — General Damages — Assessment Principles
Assessment of damages is based on the principle of restitutio in integrum, which means that a party should be restored, as far as money can do it, to the position they would have been in had the injury or damage not occurred. The essence of damages is compensatory; it is neither to punish the defendant nor confer a windfall on the plaintiff.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (7)

  • David Sebuliba v Basalidde Joseph (Civil Suit No. 17 of 2014)
  • Kirungi and another V. Kabiya and three others [1987] KLR 347
  • Bristol Cardiff and Swansea Aerated Bread Co. ltd Vs Maggs (1890) 44 Ch. Div 616
  • Nakana Trading Co. Ltd v Coffee Marketing Board (Civil Suit No. 137 of 1991)
  • Nasif Mujib and another v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 160 of 2014)
  • Lydia Mugambe v Kayita James and another (Civil Suit No. 330 of 2020)
  • Orara Denis Micheal v Oniony Stephen Khesmodel (Miscellaneous Application No. 01 of 2022)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Benon Musinguzi Bangizi v Elbueno Technologies Ltd (Civil Suit 2 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 978 (29 August 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.