Wakilii

Green Light Awamu and Another v Legkwo Francis (Civil Suit 353 of 2021)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 533 · 2025 Judgment for 2nd Plaintiff (Partial) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of loan monies, heard ex parte after defendant failed to appear despite substituted service
Decision
Judgment entered for the 2nd Plaintiff for UGX 2,000,000 principal, UGX 1,000,000 general damages, interest at 25% per annum from filing, and costs. Defendant awarded costs against the 1st Plaintiff.

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 only the 2nd Plaintiff proved advancement of a loan of UGX 2,000,000 to the defendant, as admitted in the defendant's pleadings. The 1st Plaintiff lacked locus standi, having not appeared on any loan agreements. The court struck down the agreed interest rate of 15% per day as unconscionable under Civil Procedure Act s.26, and declined to award contractual interest. The 2nd Plaintiff was awarded UGX 2,000,000 principal, UGX 1,000,000 general damages, interest at 25% per annum from filing, and costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the 2nd Plaintiff for UGX 2,000,000 principal, UGX 1,000,000 general damages, interest at 25% per annum from filing, and costs. Defendant awarded costs against the 1st Plaintiff.

Facts

The plaintiffs, licensed money lenders, sued the defendant for recovery of UGX 53,000,000 allegedly advanced as loans. The 1st Plaintiff claimed to have advanced UGX 1,500,000 in February 2021, and the 2nd Plaintiff claimed UGX 28,000,000 in March 2021, both secured against motor vehicle UBH 131E. The vehicle was later discovered to belong to a third party, Cheptoris Sylvia, who successfully applied to be struck out as a defendant in Misc. Application No. 783 of 2021. The defendant filed a defence denying the loans and alleging the plaintiffs lacked money lending licences. The defendant failed to appear for trial despite substituted service, and the matter proceeded ex parte. The court found inconsistencies in the plaintiffs' evidence, including that the 1st Plaintiff's loan agreements were with a different entity (Osobola Okukula Kulana Investment) and that the 1st Plaintiff lacked locus standi per the earlier ruling. The defendant had admitted in his pleadings to borrowing UGX 2,000,000 from the 2nd Plaintiff.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiffs extended loan facilities to the Defendant?
  2. What remedies are available to the Parties?

Orders

  • The Defendant borrowed from the 2nd Plaintiff.
  • The 2nd Plaintiff is entitled to recover UGX 2,000,000 from the Defendant.
  • The 2nd Plaintiff is awarded interest at 25% per annum from the date of filing this suit until payment in full.
  • The 2nd Plaintiff is awarded UGX 1,000,000 in general damages against the Defendant.
  • The 2nd Plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit against the Defendant.
  • The Defendant is awarded costs of the suit against the 1st Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Ex Parte Proceedings — Requirements for Proceeding in Defendant's Absence
Where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear when the suit is called for hearing, if the court is satisfied that the summons or notice of hearing was duly served (including by substituted service), it may proceed ex parte under Order 9 Rule 20(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Burden of Proof — Ex Parte Proceedings
Even where a suit proceeds ex parte and the defendant does not cross-examine the plaintiff's witness, the plaintiff still bears the burden of proving its case on the balance of probabilities and must adduce sufficient evidence to establish the claim before the court grants the prayers sought.
Pleadings — Deemed Admissions
Under Order 8 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 57 of the Evidence Act, every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the opposite party, shall be deemed to be admitted, and parties are bound by their pleadings.
Locus Standi — Effect of Subsisting Court Orders
Where a court has ruled that a party lacks locus standi in respect of the subject matter of a suit, that ruling stands effective until set aside, and the party cannot maintain the claim in the absence of additional evidence establishing standing.
Interest Rates — Unconscionable Terms — Court's Power to Strike Down
Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers courts to adjust or strike down any contractual interest rate as excessive or unconscionable. An agreed interest rate of 15% per day (equivalent to 450% per month or 180% per annum) is unconscionable and will be struck down, notwithstanding the principle of freedom of contract.
Retrospective Application of Legislation
The law cannot operate or be applied retrospectively unless such an intention is drawn from the amendment itself. Regulatory interest rate caps introduced by subsequent legislation cannot be applied to transactions that occurred before the legislation came into force.
General Damages — Breach of Loan Agreement
Where a defendant borrows money and fails to repay, the lender incurs financial losses and is entitled to general damages to restore it to the position it would have been in, or as nearly as possible, had the breach not occurred. General damages are assessed by the court in its discretion where no precise measure exists.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (22)

  • Akuta Alfonse & 3 Ors v Lakony David Livingstone (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2015)
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Kirugi and another v Kabiya and three others [1987] KLR
  • Sylar Kakugu Tumwesigyire v Trans Sahara International General TRDG L.L.C (HCT-00-CC-CS-0095 of 2005)
  • Smith v Auto Electric Services Ltd (1951) 24 KLR 22
  • Fredrick J.K Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006) [2007] UGSC 21
  • Kampala Bottlers v Damanico (SCCA No. 22 of 1992)
  • R (Ammori) v Home Secretary [2025] EWCA Civ 848
  • Printing and Numerical Registering Co v Simpson [1985] LD 19 Eq 462
  • Francis Kiyaga v Josephine Segujja and another (Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2010)
  • Attorney General v Dr. Major (Rtd.) Anthony Jallon Okullo (Civil Appeal No. 207 of 2016)
  • Jas Ventures International Limited v Atuhairwe Juliet (Civil Suit No. 676 of 2021)
  • Hon. Erias Lukwago & Others v Electoral Commission and 7 Others (HCMA 431 of 2019)
  • Storms v Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 7 of 1995)
  • Premchandra Shenoi & Anor v Maximov Oleg Petrovich (SCCA No. 9 of 2003)
  • Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 31 of 1995)
  • Harry Ssempa v Kamabagambire David (HCCS 408 of 2014)
  • Lyamuleme David v AG (SCCA No. 4 of 2013)
  • Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 873
  • Jani Properties Ltd v Dar-es-Salaam City Council [1966] EA 281
  • Struggle (U) Ltd vs Pan African Insurance Co. Ltd. (1990-91) Karl 46

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Green Light Awamu and Another v Legkwo Francis (Civil Suit 353 of 2021) [2025] UGCommC 533 (19 August 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.