Wakilii

Bitwire and Another v Cooperative Bank Limited (in reciervership) (Civil Appeal 21 of 2007)

Court of Appeal · [2019] UGCA 2093 · 2019 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from High Court judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' suit against the bank
Decision
Appeal dismissed; trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit upheld with costs

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 of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that notice of countermand of a cheque must be clear, unambiguous and brought to the actual knowledge of the bank. The appellants failed to prove the bank received the stop-payment letter, since exhibit P.2 bore no bank stamp and no countermand was entered in the ledger card. Absent actual notice, the bank was under a contractual duty to honour the cheques. On the disputed Shs. 20,000,000 deposit, the burden lay on the holder of the deposit slip, and the appellants failed to prove the deposit was made, the slip lacking a bank stamp and draft particulars. The trial judge's findings were upheld with costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit upheld with costs

Facts

The appellants, administrators of the estate of David Bitwire, sued the respondent bank in which their deceased father held an account at the Kasese branch. In August 1998, ADF rebels looted the deceased's premises, taking two cheque leaves. The following October those two cheques were presented and a large sum withdrawn. The appellants contended the deceased had given notice to the bank to stop payment, yet the bank honoured the cheques, causing a loss of Ug. Shs. 100,000,000. They also claimed a Shs. 20,000,000 deposit was not credited and a Shs. 30,000,000 debit was wrongly entered, suing to recover Shs. 150,000,000. The bank denied liability, contending it was never instructed to stop payment and that the cheques were properly presented and honoured. The stop-payment letter (exhibit P.2) bore no bank stamp acknowledging receipt, and no countermand was entered in the ledger card. The deposit slip lacked a bank stamp and details of the alleged draft.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent bank received an effective notice of countermand (actual notice) stopping payment of the two cheques.
  2. Whether the respondent received the deposit of Ug. Shs. 20,000,000 claimed by the appellants.
  3. Whether the appellants were entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent in this Court and the Court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Banking Law — Cheques — Countermand of Payment — Requirement of Actual Notice
Notice of countermand of a cheque must be clear and unambiguous and must be brought to the actual, not constructive, knowledge of the bank before the bank's authority to pay is determined.
Banking Law — Cheques — Bank's Contractual Duty to Pay — Absence of Effective Countermand
In the absence of the bank's actual notice of the customer's countermand of payment, the bank is under a contractual duty to honour a duly drawn cheque and is not liable for paying it.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Disputed Bank Deposit — Holder of Deposit Slip
Where the contents of a deposit slip are disputed, the burden of proving that the deposit was in fact made rests on the alleged depositor as holder of the slip; an unstamped slip lacking essential particulars does not discharge that burden.
Evidence — First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
A first appellate court is under a duty to re-evaluate all the evidence on record and reach its own conclusions, bearing in mind that it did not see and hear the witnesses.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bitwire and Another v Cooperative Bank Limited (in reciervership) (Civil Appeal 21 of 2007) [2019] UGCA 2093 (12 November 2019)
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.