Frontier Logistics International (U) Ltd and Another v Absa Bank (U) Limited [2026] UGCOMMC 62
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 dismissed an application for discovery of a valuation report relating to collateral for a loan. The court held that the applicants failed to meet the requirements for an order for discovery because the contractual obligation to obtain and retain the valuation report rested with the applicants under the facility letters, not the respondent bank. The respondent's unchallenged assertion that it had searched its records and could not locate the report was accepted. Although the document was found to be relevant and material to the applicants' defence of fraud and not privileged, the failure to establish that the document was in the respondent's possession, custody, or control was fatal to the application.
Outcome
Application for discovery dismissed
Facts
The respondent bank sued the applicants in Civil Suit No. 119 of 2019 for recovery of a debt arising from a loan disbursed to the 1st applicant and guaranteed by the 2nd applicant. The loan was secured by land at Kibuga Block 4 Plot 890. The applicants sought an order compelling the respondent to deliver a copy of the valuation report for the collateral property, which they claimed was conducted prior to loan disbursement and was necessary for their defence alleging fraud and undervaluation in the realisation of the security. The respondent produced facility letters dated 27 July 2016 showing that the 1st applicant was contractually obligated to provide the valuation report to the bank. The respondent stated it had searched its records and could not locate the valuation report. The applicants did not file a counterclaim raising the issue of undervaluation.
Issues
- Whether the Applicants have adduced sufficient grounds for orders sought?
- What remedies are available?
Orders
- Application dismissed with costs in the cause.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
Cases cited (9)
- Kiyega George William v Rapid Advisory Services Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 2352 of 2025)
- Simbamanyo Estates Ltd and Another v Equity Bank and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 583 of 2022)
- Suleiman Kaweesi v Bank of Uganda and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 258 of 2022)
- Senkungu and 4 Others v Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2014)
- Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
- Dresdner Bank A.G Vs Sango Bay Estates Ltd (No. 3) [1971] E.A 326 at 328
- Dresdner Bank A.G Vs Sango Bay Estates Ltd (No. 4) [1971] E.A 409
- Kaweesi Suleiman and Others v Bank of Uganda and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 258 of 2022)
- Simbamanyo Estates Ltd and Another v Equity Bank (U) Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 583 of 2022)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.