Wakilii

Betty Byabashaija v Munanura Yeyard (Civil Suit No. 0002 of 2014)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 263 · 2018 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money lent
Decision
Plaintiff awarded principal sum, general damages, interest, and costs

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 proved on the balance of probabilities that she advanced UGX 128,980,000 to the defendant which he was bound to repay. Payment having been admitted and receipt proved through bank transfer documents, a prima facie obligation to repay arose. The defendant's defence — that the money was for purchasing materials or settling debts — was inconsistent with his pleadings and uncorroborated. After deducting a part payment of UGX 14,000,000, the defendant was ordered to pay UGX 114,980,000 plus general damages and interest.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded principal sum, general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

Between February 2011 and April 2012, the plaintiff transferred a total of UGX 128,980,000 to the defendant's Barclays Bank account. The plaintiff claimed she lent the money to the defendant on the understanding he would repay it. The defendant denied indebtedness, asserting the money was for purchasing fabric for the plaintiff's business, settling debts, or payment for motor vehicles. The defendant paid UGX 14,000,000 in July 2013. The plaintiff obtained loans from Barclays Bank and Post Bank to advance funds to the defendant. A criminal complaint was lodged. The defendant's defence contained multiple inconsistencies and departures from his pleadings.

Issues

  1. Whether the sum of UGX 128,980,000 was money had and received by the defendant from the plaintiff and if so whether the defendant balance of UGX 114,980,000 is due and payable to the plaintiff
  2. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff.
  • Defendant to pay UGX 114,980,000 (principal sum less part payment of UGX 14,000,000).
  • General damages of UGX 20,000,000 awarded.
  • Interest of 12.5% per annum on the decretal sum from the date of filing suit until payment in full.
  • Interest of 10% per annum on general damages from the date of judgment.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Loans — Friendly Loans — Prima Facie Obligation to Repay
Where payment of money to a defendant is admitted or proved, there arises a prima facie obligation on the defendant to repay the money in the absence of circumstances tending to show a presumption of advancement or other factors negating the implied obligation to repay.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Money Had and Received
Where money is proved to have been received by a defendant, the onus shifts to the defendant to show that the money was not supposed to be repaid.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Departure from Pleadings
A party who departs from his or her pleadings and gives evidence contrary thereto may be deemed to be lying, and such evidence may be rejected. A litigant will not be allowed to succeed on a case not set up in the pleadings except by way of amendment.
Evidence — Contradictions and Inconsistencies — Effect on Credibility
Where contradictions and inconsistencies in a witness's evidence are major and intended to mislead or constitute deliberate untruthfulness, the evidence may be rejected. Minor contradictions capable of innocent explanation will not have that effect.
Evidence — Unchallenged Evidence — Deemed Admission
Where evidence on a material or essential point is not challenged, such evidence is deemed admitted as inherently credible and probably true.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment
General damages are such as the law will presume to be the direct, natural, and probable consequence of the act complained of. In quantification, the court must put the plaintiff in the position he would have been in had he not suffered the wrong.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Just and Reasonable Rate
A just and reasonable rate of interest is one that cushions the awarded amount against inflation and currency depreciation, insulating the plaintiff against economic vagaries while remaining fair to the defendant.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (16)

  • Klaus Kempt v Yobe Okello (High Court Civil Suit No. 0973 of 2004)
  • Gede Rwewa v Ruth Bunyertyeri (High Court Civil Suit No. 181 of 2004)
  • Selden vs. Davidson (1968) 2 ALL. ER page 755
  • INTERFREIGHT FORWARDERS (U) VERSUS EAST AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK EARL (1990-1994) EA 117
  • Mohan Musisi Kiwanuka v Asha Chand (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2002)
  • Sebughingiriza v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 251 of 2012)
  • Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
  • Adam Bale and 2 Others v Willy Okumu (High Court Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2005)
  • Nakam Nairuba Mabel v Crane Bank Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 338 of 2009)
  • RE H (Minors) (1996) AC 563
  • In RE B (Children) 2008 UKHL 35
  • Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Stephen Mabosi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1995)
  • Dr Denis Lwamafa v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 79 of 1983)
  • Ouma vs Nairobi City Council [1976] KLR 298
  • Kakubhai Mohanlal v Warid Telecom Uganda (High Court Civil Suit No. 224 of 2011)

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.

Betty Byabashaija v Munanura Yeyard (Civil Suit No. 0002 of 2014) [2018] UGHCCD 263 (7 December 2018)
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.