Wakilii

Goodluck Francis Kway and Another v Smart Protus Magara (Civil Suit 246 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 256 · 2026 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money deposited on defendant's bank account
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiffs; defendant ordered to refund USD 135,016 with interest at 20% per annum from date of filing suit

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 where plaintiffs proved they deposited USD 135,016 on the defendant's personal bank account and the defendant failed to adduce credible evidence showing the funds were transferred to a third party, credited to the plaintiffs' accounts, or applied for their benefit, the defendant was personally liable to refund the sum under the principle of money had and received, notwithstanding his assertion that the deposits related to electronic money transactions under a separate investment platform.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiffs; defendant ordered to refund USD 135,016 with interest at 20% per annum from date of filing suit

Facts

Between 17 and 20 February 2017, two Tanzanian nationals met the defendant at hotels in Uganda where they were introduced to the D9 investment platform. The defendant allegedly represented that they would earn USD 400 for every USD 1,000 invested and directed them to deposit funds on his personal Equity Bank Uganda account. The first plaintiff deposited USD 55,071 and the second plaintiff deposited USD 79,945 on the defendant's account. The investment platform subsequently collapsed without paying the promised returns or refunding the principal sums. The defendant contended that he was merely a participant in the D9 platform, not its owner or promoter, and that any deposits to his account were payments for electronic currency rather than funds entrusted to him for investment. The defendant further argued that the plaintiffs' recourse lay through the Official Receiver verification process established following the freezing of his bank accounts by the Financial Intelligence Authority. Documentary evidence from Equity Bank Tanzania confirmed the deposits to the defendant's account, which the defendant admitted owning.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant received the plaintiffs' money for unjust enrichment.
  2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a refund of the sums claimed together with interest.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The defendant, Smart Protus Magara, shall pay to the first plaintiff, Goodluck Francis Kway, the sum of USD 55,071.
  • The defendant shall pay interest to the first plaintiff on the sum of USD 55,071 at the rate of 20% per annum from 1 June 2022 until payment in full.
  • The defendant shall pay to the second plaintiff, George Kessy, the sum of USD 79,945.
  • The defendant shall pay interest to the second plaintiff on the sum of USD 79,945 at the rate of 20% per annum from 1 June 2022 until payment in full.
  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiffs' costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Money Had and Received — Personal Liability for Funds Received
Where one person has received money from another in circumstances showing that, in law and conscience, the money ought to be returned, the recipient is regarded as having received it to the use of the payer, and the law imposes an obligation upon the recipient to repay the person entitled to it, entitling the rightful owner to maintain an action for money had and received.
Contract Law — Money Had and Received — Burden of Proof — Accounting for Funds Received
Where a defendant admits ownership of a bank account into which funds were deposited but asserts that the funds were applied for a third party's benefit or transferred elsewhere, the defendant bears the burden of adducing credible documentary evidence to support that assertion, and in the absence of such proof, personal liability to refund the sum is established.
Commercial Law — Interest on Commercial Debts — Rate of Interest
Where money is received in a commercial context and the recipient fails to account for or refund it, it is just and appropriate to award interest at a commercial rate of 20% per annum from the date of filing suit until payment in full.
Administrative Law — Official Receiver Process — Scope of Determination
A court order directing that victims of an investment scheme be compensated through an Official Receiver verification process applies only to claimants who were parties to that cause or who participated in the defined categories of the verification exercise, and does not extinguish or determine the claims of persons who were not parties to the original cause and whose names do not appear on the verified claimants' lists.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (10)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Goodluck Francis Kway and Another v Smart Protus Magara (Civil Suit 246 of 2024) [2026] UGHCCD 256 (28 July 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.