Cairo Bank Uganda v Nuwabiine & 4 Others (Civil Suit 854 of 2022)
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 4th Defendant valuer was not negligent because the Plaintiff had already granted the loan before receiving the valuation report, and thus could not have relied upon it. The four conditions for liability for economic loss in negligence were examined, and the reliance requirement was not satisfied. Judgment was entered against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Defendants for UGX 1,110,119,534 plus contractual interest, general damages of UGX 50,000,000, and punitive damages of UGX 40,000,000 for breach of loan facility, fraud, and professional negligence.
Outcome
Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Defendants for the full claim plus damages and costs. Claim against the 4th Defendant dismissed.
Facts
The 1st Defendant applied to the Plaintiff bank for a loan facility of UGX 1,000,000,000 and offered security in land titles. The Plaintiff instructed the 3rd Defendant to survey and value property, and later instructed the 4th Defendant to value additional properties. A loan was granted on 3rd October 2019 and a mortgage deed signed on 26th September 2019, with a variation executed on 30th October 2019. The 1st Defendant undertook to repay in 24 equal monthly instalments at 20% interest per annum with default interest of 6%. By 1st August 2022, the 1st and 2nd Defendants had defaulted and failed to provide genuine security, having presented forged Certificates of Title. The 4th Defendant's valuation report was submitted on 25th October 2019, after the loan and original mortgage had been executed. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Defendants did not file defences. The 4th Defendant defended, denying negligence and asserting the Plaintiff could not have relied on a report delivered after the loan was granted.
Issues
- Whether the 4th Defendant was negligent in the execution of its duties to the Plaintiff?
- What reliefs are available to the Plaintiff as against all the Defendants?
Orders
- Judgment entered against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Defendants for UGX 1,110,119,534.
- Interest at 26% per annum from 1st August 2022 until payment in full awarded against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Defendants.
- General damages of UGX 50,000,000 awarded to the Plaintiff against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Defendants.
- Punitive damages of UGX 40,000,000 awarded to the Plaintiff against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Defendants.
- Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (2)
- Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465
- Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.