Busoga Growers Cooperative Union Ltd v Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (HCT-00-CC-CS 240 of 2004)
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
Held that an assignee of a non-performing loan can only recover the sum expressly assigned by deed, calculated as at the date stated in that deed. The assignee may charge interest on the assigned sum from the assignment date forward, but cannot claim amounts beyond the assigned sum or retrospectively recalculate the debt. The defendant improperly demanded UGX 146,490,444 when the deed assigned only UGX 49,383,580 as at 31 December 1995. Plaintiff entitled to recovery of overpayment with interest.
Outcome
Plaintiff recovered overpaid sums with interest and costs
Facts
The plaintiff had loan accounts with Uganda Commercial Bank. On 7 March 1996, UCB assigned a loan balance of UGX 49,383,580 as at 31 December 1995 to the defendant statutory body by deed of assignment. The defendant approached the plaintiff with a repayment proposal dated 6 May 1996 claiming UGX 146,490,444, comprising UGX 81,383,580 confirmed by Ernst & Young and UGX 65,106,864 in updated interest, both calculated as at 30 September 1994. The plaintiff paid the entire demanded sum save for a discount/waiver of UGX 42,492,356. The plaintiff subsequently sued to recover the excess paid over the sum actually assigned. By 30 April 1996, plaintiff had already paid UGX 54,898,088, exceeding the assigned amount. UCB retained spares valued at UGX 24,232,541 belonging to plaintiff, which were eventually credited as part of the waiver.
Issues
- How much money did the plaintiff pay to the defendant?
- If this amount is higher than the sum assigned, whether the defendant was entitled to receive more amounts than was assigned.
- If the defendant was not so entitled, whether the plaintiff would be entitled to receive it back with interest.
Orders
- Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of UGX 85,519,996.50.
- Interest at the rate of 30% per annum on the judgment sum from 24 September 1996 to the date of judgment.
- Interest thereafter at court rate until payment in full.
- Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Non-Performing Assets Recovery Act Chapter 95 s.9(2)
- Non-Performing Assets Recovery Statute Act s.11(1)
- Non-Performing Assets Recovery Statute Act s.11(2)
Cases cited (2)
- Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust v West Nile Distilling Co. Ltd (NPART Tribunal Case No. 28 of 1996)
- Paul J Erongot v Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (NPART Tribunal Case No. 17 of 1996)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.