Wakilii

Craig Whitehead v Buhikire Benjamin and Another (Civil Suit No. 626 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 440 · 2025 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 had and received, heard ex parte after defendants failed to appear
Decision
Judgment entered against the Defendants with orders for refund of USD 62,937, general damages of UGX 30,000,000, interest, and 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 High Court held that the defendants unjustly enriched themselves by receiving USD 62,937 from the plaintiff for investment purposes but failing to use the money as intended or provide any benefit to the plaintiff. The court found that once the plaintiff established a prima facie case of money had and received, the evidential burden shifted to the defendants to prove the money was used for the plaintiff's benefit, which they failed to do by not appearing at trial.

Outcome

Judgment entered against the Defendants with orders for refund of USD 62,937, general damages of UGX 30,000,000, interest, and costs

Facts

In 2022, the plaintiff and the first defendant agreed to establish business ventures in Uganda, with the plaintiff as financier and the defendants as local operators. The plaintiff sent USD 62,937 to the defendants between October 2021 and December 2022 for purchasing land, establishing companies (Alexander and Renae Holding East Africa Limited and Ishama Commercial), and setting up operations. The defendants were to receive ownership stakes and remuneration in return. Despite repeated demands, the defendants failed to provide documentation for purchased properties, proof of businesses allegedly started, or accountability for the funds. The plaintiff issued a demand notice on 12th March 2024 for refund of the money. The defendants filed a defence but failed to appear at multiple scheduled hearings, leading to an ex parte trial.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants unjustly enriched themselves from the Plaintiff's money?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?
  3. Whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to hear this matter?
  4. Whether the Plaintiff has a cause of action against the Defendants?

Orders

  • It is declared that the Defendants unjustly enriched themselves by receiving USD 62,937 from the Plaintiff which was meant for investment but ended up putting it to their personal use.
  • The Defendants shall refund USD 62,937 to the Plaintiff.
  • The Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff general damages amounting to UGX 30,000,000.
  • Interest at the rate of 18% per annum is awarded on the decretal sum from 22nd November, 2023 until payment in full.
  • Interest at the rate of 6% per annum is awarded on the general damages from the date of Judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Territorial Jurisdiction — Submission by Filing Defence
Where a defendant files a written statement of defence without first filing an application challenging jurisdiction, the filing of the defence constitutes a submission to the jurisdiction of the court unless the defence is withdrawn by leave of court.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Test for Existence
To establish a cause of action, the plaintiff must show that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, the right has been violated, and that the defendant is liable. In determining whether there is a cause of action, the court must solely consider the plaint and its annexures, if any, and no other evidence.
Contract Law — Money Had and Received — Elements of the Claim
For a plaintiff to succeed in a claim for money had and received, they must show that the defendant received money intended to be used for the benefit of the plaintiff, the money was not used for the benefit of the plaintiff, and the defendant has not given the money to the plaintiff.
Contract Law — Money Had and Received — Burden of Proof
Once the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in a claim for money had and received, the evidential burden shifts to the defendant to controvert the plaintiff's prima facie case. The burden of proving that equity and good conscience does not demand a refund devolves upon the defendant who offers such a defence.
Contract Law — Evidence — WhatsApp Messages as Proof of Contractual Arrangement
A series of WhatsApp exchanges can prove the existence of a contractual arrangement between parties.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Measure and Assessment
The general rule regarding the measure of general damages is that the award is such a sum of money that will put the party who has been injured or who has suffered as adjudged by court in the same position as he or she would have been had he or she not sustained the wrong for which he or she is getting the compensation. General damages should be compensatory in nature and restore some satisfaction, as far as money can do, to the injured plaintiff.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (18)

  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
  • Koboko District Local Government v Okujjo Swali (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 01 of 2016)
  • Ssentamu Joseph v Jibu Corporate Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 51 of 2021)
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Kapeka Coffee Works Ltd v NPART (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Ainomugisho Winifred & Others v Fatuma Dusto Nalumansi & Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 2084 of 2016)
  • Joseph Jabs Mubiru v Quilliono Bamwe (Civil Suit No. 431 of 2021)
  • Wen Jie v Nabimanya Isaac and Another (Civil Suit No. 605 of 2014)
  • John Bwiza v Patrick Yowasi Kadama (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2011)
  • Sebuliba Busuulwa Vs Co-operative Bank Ltd [1982] HCB 129
  • Uganda Farmers Meat Co. Limited v Fresh Cuts Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 942 of 2020)
  • Gloria Kubajo and Oloye Venance Kolley v Francis Drate (Civil Suit No. 889 of 2020)
  • Kabandize John Baptist and 21 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2016)
  • Takiya Kashwahiri and Another v Kajungu Denis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank Vs Deo Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation (U) Ltd and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2000)
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 224 of 2011)
  • Uganda Development Bank Vs Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] H.C.B 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Craig Whitehead v Buhikire Benjamin and Another (Civil Suit No. 626 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 440 (27 November 2025)
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.