Wakilii

Francis Xavier Ssempiira v Aline Nabami Kaboy [2026] UGCOMMC 380

High Court · 2026 Judgment Partly for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money as money had and received
Decision
Suit partly succeeded; judgment entered for the Plaintiff for UGX 5,000,000 and CAD 38,162.31 as money had and received, plus UGX 60,000,000 general damages, interest and costs. The claim for CAD 52,999 was 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 the plaintiff established a claim for money had and received. The defendant received UGX 5,000,000 and CAD 38,162.31 for the purchase and delivery of gold which was never bought or delivered, so the consideration wholly failed and restitution was ordered. The alleged CAD 52,999 (USD 51,500) cash paid through an agent was unproven and dismissed. The defendant's claims of loans and partnership were rejected, and agency was not established. General damages of UGX 60,000,000, commercial-rate interest and costs were awarded. Both preliminary objections — no cause of action and departure from pleadings — were overruled.

Outcome

Suit partly succeeded; judgment entered for the Plaintiff for UGX 5,000,000 and CAD 38,162.31 as money had and received, plus UGX 60,000,000 general damages, interest and costs. The claim for CAD 52,999 was dismissed.

Facts

The plaintiff, a Ugandan resident in Canada and founder of Yata Technologies Inc., was introduced in 2020 to the defendant, a Ugandan woman then running a garage, by a mutual acquaintance. The two had never met. An arrangement about gold followed. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant undertook to obtain gold from genuine dealers and export it to him in Canada. On 26 November 2020 the plaintiff sent UGX 5,000,000 in cash through his brother; the defendant acknowledged receipt in writing and travelled to Tanzania on a described "gold mission", meeting a seller, Levrance Nkombo. Shipment through DHL failed because it does not carry gold, and the defendant left the gold with Nkombo. Between 29 November 2020 and January 2021 the plaintiff remitted CAD 38,162.31 electronically to the defendant's mobile money numbers and her Stanbic Bank account. No gold ever reached the plaintiff in Canada. The defendant contended the money was repayment of loans she had advanced and that the parties later became partners, into which she put over UGX 100,000,000 of her own money. She called no witness other than herself to corroborate the loans, the partnership, or the fate of the gold.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action (preliminary objection).
  2. Whether the plaintiff's evidence of a cash sum not pleaded in a specified figure was an impermissible departure from the pleadings (preliminary objection).
  3. Whether the defendant received money from the plaintiff for the purchase and delivery of gold.
  4. Whether the defendant bought and delivered the gold.
  5. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Defendant received money from the Plaintiff for the purchase and delivery of gold, and that she neither purchased nor delivered the gold to the Plaintiff.
  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff UGX 5,000,000 as money had and received to the Plaintiff's use.
  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff CAD 38,162.31 as money had and received to the Plaintiff's use.
  • The Plaintiff's claim to recover the balance of the pleaded CAD 91,161.31, being the cash element of CAD 52,999 said to have been delivered through agents, is dismissed.
  • The Defendant shall pay interest on the UGX 5,000,000 at 23% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • The Defendant shall pay interest on the CAD 38,162.31 at 10% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff general damages of UGX 60,000,000, with interest at the court rate from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff's costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Restitution — Money Had and Received — Proof of Payment and Total Failure of Consideration
A claim for money had and received requires proof by evidence of the specific payments received, the basis on which they were received, the total failure of that basis, and that it is against equity and good conscience for the defendant to retain the money; where money is paid for a purpose that wholly fails, it is recoverable as money had and received whether or not any enforceable contract existed.
Contract Law — Formation — Writing Requirement under Contracts Act s.9(5) — Directory Not Mandatory
The requirement in section 9(5) of the Contracts Act that a contract whose subject matter exceeds twenty-five currency points be in writing is directory and not mandatory; a failure to reduce such an agreement to writing goes to the difficulty of proof, not to the validity or enforceability of the transaction.
Contract Law — Agency — Burden of Proving Existence and Authority
Agency is a relationship that must be created expressly or by implication from conduct and cannot be presumed; the burden of proving the agency and the agent's authority lies on the party who asserts it, and the label the parties attach to the relationship is not decisive.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Legal Burden on Party Who Asserts
In civil proceedings the legal burden of proving the claim lies on the plaintiff throughout on a balance of probabilities and never shifts; it is not discharged merely because the defendant's own account is unsatisfactory, though once a prima facie case is made the evidential burden shifts to the defendant to controvert it.
Evidence — Adverse Inference — Failure to Call Available Named Witnesses
Where a party fails, without explanation, to call witnesses who are its own choice, are named in its pleadings, and are central to the very transactions in issue, the court may properly infer that the evidence of those witnesses, if adduced, would not have supported that party's account.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Departure from Pleadings under Order 6 rule 7 — Fair Notice Test
A departure from pleadings will not defeat a claim where the opposing party had fair notice of the case to be met, answered it and adduced evidence accordingly, and suffered no failure of justice; a failure to plead a precise figure for an already-pleaded head of claim is a mere irregularity in quantification, not a new cause of action.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages and Interest in Restitutionary Claims — Commercial Transactions
In a restitutionary claim arising from a failed venture rather than mere delay in paying a debt, a plaintiff may recover a modest award of general damages for proved inconvenience and distress in addition to interest, provided there is no double compensation; where money was received for a commercial transaction the court rate is inappropriate and a commercial rate of interest should be awarded to insulate the plaintiff against currency depreciation.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (33)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Tororo Cement Co Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov (No 3) [1971] EA 514
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)
  • Bakaluba Peter Mukasa v Nambooze Betty Bakireke (Election Petition Appeal No. 4 of 2009)
  • Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation [2002] 2 EA 634
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Havinder Jhass Singh v Rosemary Asea and Another (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2016)
  • Aaron Kasingye v Alice Nviiri Namubiru (Civil Suit No. 342 of 2024)
  • Post Bank (U) Limited v Henry Ssali Tamale (Civil Suit No. 729 of 2016)
  • Cairo International Bank v Sadique M. Janjua (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2010)
  • Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Burr 1005; 97 ER 676
  • Premchandra Shenoi and Another v Maximov Oleg Petrovich (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003)
  • James Ojwiya v Betty Mutisa (Civil Suit No. 2122 of 2016)
  • Dr. James Kashugyera Tumwine and Another v Sr. Willie Magara and Another (Civil Suit No. 576 of 2004)
  • Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] AC 32
  • Kubajo and Another v Drate (Civil Suit No. 889 of 2020)
  • Mahabir Kishore v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 313
  • Enos Johns v Allan Shem Kirumira (Civil Suit No. 57 of 2008)
  • John Kagwa v Kolin Insaat Turizm Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. and Another (Civil Suit No. 318 of 2012)
  • Anthony Nsibirwa Sseruwagi v Alnoor Jamani and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 1024 of 2019)
  • Bulega Hamidu v Johnstone Group Limited (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2016)
  • Kyomukama Salome v Katushabe Juliet (Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2018)
  • Sitende Sebalu v Sam Njuba and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2007)
  • Pole v Leask (1863) 33 LJ Ch 155
  • Fredrick J.K. Zaabwe v Orient Bank Limited and 5 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Khan v Miah [2000] UKHL 55
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341; 156 ER 145
  • Betty Kizito v David Kizito Kanonya and 7 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2018)
  • Katkar Hanumant v Miracle Motors Company Limited (Civil Suit No. 800 of 2018)
  • President of India v La Pintada Compania Navigacion SA [1985] AC 104
  • Yonasani B. Kanyomozi v Motor Mart (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1995)
  • Munywevu and Another v Maersk Agency Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 528 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Francis Xavier Ssempiira v Aline Nabami Kaboy [2026] UGCOMMC 380 (3 August 2026)
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.