Wakilii

Ibrahim Kibirige v UCB & Anor (Civil Suit No. 408 of 2000)

High Court · [2003] UGCOMMC 8 · 2003 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract or money had and received following loss of travellers cheques
Decision
Action dismissed with no award of damages or interest to the 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

Held that the issuer of travellers cheques is under a contractual obligation to refund lost or stolen cheques where the purchaser complies with the terms of the purchase agreement, including reporting the loss and providing an indemnity. However, the obligation is not to refund immediately but within a reasonable time to permit investigations. Where the issuer refunds after conducting investigations and the purchaser has not been grossly negligent, no breach of contract arises and no interest or damages are payable for the delay.

Outcome

Action dismissed with no award of damages or interest to the plaintiff

Facts

The plaintiff, a Ugandan businessman, purchased US$4,000 worth of travellers cheques from Uganda Commercial Bank (1st defendant) acting as agent for Citicorp (2nd defendant) on 24 November 1999. The purchase agreement required the plaintiff to sign each cheque on receipt, safeguard them, and immediately notify Citicorp and police in case of loss or theft. The cheques were stolen on 1 January 2000 (judgment states 3 January 2000 in submissions). The plaintiff reported the theft to police and UCB and filed a refund claim form on 24 January 2000. When refund was not made, the plaintiff filed suit on 17 April 2000. The 2nd defendant refunded the US$4,000 on 12 August 2000 (judgment states 23 December 2000 in submissions). The plaintiff subsequently dropped the action against the 1st defendant and proceeded against the 2nd defendant only for general damages and interest. The 2nd defendant did not file a defence.

Issues

  1. Whether the 2nd Defendant breached the contract by failing to refund the travellers cheques immediately.
  2. If breach is established, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to general damages and interest, and in what amount.

Orders

  • Action dismissed.
  • No order as to costs, as the 2nd Defendant did not participate in the action.

Rules and key headnotes

Travellers Cheques — Issuer's Obligation to Refund — Time for Performance
An issuer of travellers cheques is under a contractual obligation to refund a purchaser upon loss or theft of the cheques, provided the purchaser complies with the terms of the purchase agreement, but the obligation is not to refund immediately but within a reasonable time to permit the issuer to conduct investigations before making the refund.
Breach of Contract — Time for Performance — Reasonable Time
Where a contract does not stipulate that performance must occur immediately, a delay occasioned by the need to carry out necessary investigations before performance does not constitute a breach of contract where such investigations are reasonable in the circumstances.
Special Damages — Pleading and Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Claims for expenses such as telephone calls or service out of jurisdiction will be disallowed where they are not pleaded in the statement of claim or not supported by receipts or other documentary evidence.
Travellers Cheques — Indemnity — Protection of Issuer
Where travellers cheques are lost before being counter-signed by the purchaser, the purchaser is entitled to obtain their face value from the issuing banker provided the purchaser signs an indemnity, which indemnity protects the banker if it transpires that the cheques had been counter-signed before they were lost.

Cases cited (3)

  • Ewadi v Bank of Credit and Commerce International South Africa (1989) All ER 243
  • Nakawa Trading Co. Limited v Coffee Marketing Board (High Court Civil Suit No. 137 of 1991)
  • John Nagenda v Sabena Belgian World Airlines (1992) 1 KALR 13

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ibrahim Kibirige v UCB & Anor (Civil Suit No. 408 of 2000) [2003] UGCommC 8 (22 April 2003)
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.