Wakilii

Bigala v Namuwenge (Civil Suit No. 98 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 93 · 2023 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money deposited in defendant's bank account
Decision
Plaintiff's claim for recovery of UGX 43,000,000 dismissed

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

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 court held that the plaintiff failed to prove an enforceable oral contract to save money for a future business, as Contracts Act s.10(5) requires contracts exceeding twenty-five currency points to be in writing. The plaintiff did not establish that UGX 43,000,000 deposited into the defendant's personal account during their cohabitation relationship was for business purposes rather than contributions to household expenses and child support. Unmarried cohabitants have no right to recover money contributed during a relationship absent clear joint ownership or an enforceable written agreement. The suit was dismissed.

Outcome

Plaintiff's claim for recovery of UGX 43,000,000 dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff and defendant were in a romantic relationship from 2014 and had a child in 2017. The plaintiff claimed he deposited approximately UGX 43,000,000 into the defendant's bank account pursuant to an oral agreement to accumulate funds to UGX 100,000,000 for starting a business together. The defendant denied any business agreement, testifying that the deposits were profits from a takeaway business she had financed for the plaintiff while she was employed at Finance Trust Bank, and were also for maintenance of herself and their child. After losing her job in March 2016, the defendant withdrew funds from the account for living expenses. The relationship ended and the defendant married another man. The plaintiff then filed suit seeking to recover the deposited money as money had and received, alleging breach of agreement, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

Issues

  1. Whether money deposited on the defendant's bank account belongs to the plaintiff or defendant, and if so, whether it should be paid to the rightful owner.
  2. Whether the defendant is in breach of agreement/trust.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formal Requirements — Contracts Act s.10(5) — Oral Contracts Exceeding Twenty-Five Currency Points
An oral contract that exceeds twenty-five currency points does not amount to a valid enforceable contract under the Contracts Act s.10(5), which makes it mandatory for such contracts to be in writing.
Family Law — Cohabitation — Property Rights — Recovery of Contributions
Unmarried cohabitants have no right to recovery of money contributed during a relationship unless it is jointly owned by registration, joint bank account, or other ownership arrangement that infers clear joint ownership.
Family Law — Cohabitation — Agreements Between Cohabitants — Donative Intent
Recovery under quasi-contract or constructive trust is generally denied where a party seeks to recover for services rendered or contributions made during non-marital cohabitation, on the grounds that the courts will not aid a wrongdoer in an illicit relationship or that a donative intent motivated the services and thus justified the retention of any benefit deriving from them.
Contract Law — Unjust Enrichment — Elements
The principle of unjust enrichment requires first that the defendant has been enriched by receipt of benefit, secondly that the enrichment is at the expense of the plaintiff, and thirdly that the retention of enrichment is unjust.
Civil Procedure — Judgment on Admission — Requirements for Entry
Under Civil Procedure Rules O.13 r.6, for judgment on admission to be entered, the admission must be clear and unambiguous and must state precisely what is being admitted. The admission must be explicit and not open to doubt. Where there is doubt as to the nature or purpose of the admitted facts, judgment on admission cannot be entered.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Party Asserting Affirmative
The plaintiff bears the burden to prove that money deposited in the defendant's account was for a stated purpose and not for the purpose claimed by the defendant, in accordance with Evidence Act ss.101 and 102.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (13)

  • Nakana Trading Co. Ltd v Coffee Marketing Board (Civil Suit No. 137 of 1991)
  • Clothlink (U) Ltd v African Trade Investments Fund Ltd and Another (Civil Suit No. 234 of 2010)
  • Moses v Macfarlane (1760) 2 Burr 10
  • Future Stars Investments Limited v Nasuru (Civil Suit No. 12 of 2017)
  • Karangwa Joseph v Kulanju Will (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2016)
  • Sebanakita Godfrey v Fuelex (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 4 of 2016)
  • Nagubai Ammal and others vs B. Shama Road and others AIR 1956 SC 593
  • Penchedo Narain Srivastar vs Jyoti Sahay and Anor 1984 SCC 594
  • Nakate Halima v Farming Consultant and Management Company Limited (FAMCOM) and Others (Civil Suit No. 499 of 2019)
  • Jamil Senyonjo v Jonathan Bunjo (HCCS No. 180 of 2012)
  • Okalany v Civil Aviation Authority and Another [2016] UGHCCD 77
  • Kampala Bottlers v Damanico (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bigala v Namuwenge (Civil Suit No. 98 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 93 (7 April 2023)
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.