Wakilii

John Museveni v Kikamulo Co-operative Savings and Credit Society (HCT-00-CC-CS 192 of 2005)

High Court · [2006] UGCOMMC 6 · 2006 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of deposited funds from a co-operative savings society
Decision
Plaintiff awarded refund of deposit plus general damages and interest

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

A co-operative savings society that receives deposits from a customer becomes indebted to that customer for an equivalent sum. The banker's duty is to repay money upon demand. Where a bank fails to refund deposited money upon demand, it breaches its duty regardless of subsequent theft of bank funds, unless the customer's negligence was the proximate cause of the loss. Interest is awarded from the date of filing suit where a plaintiff has been deprived of a liquidated amount through wrongful conduct.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded refund of deposit plus general damages and interest

Facts

The Plaintiff was a customer of the Defendant co-operative savings society. In December 2004, he deposited cash totaling Shs.8,391,000/-. On 22 December 2004, he demanded refund of his money. The Defendant failed and refused to pay. The Defendant initially denied that the Plaintiff was a registered member or known customer, claiming no relationship existed. At the scheduling conference, the Defendant retracted these denials and admitted the Plaintiff was a customer. Documentary evidence comprised two passbooks and deposit slips showing deposits on 6 December 2004 (balance of Shs.7,971,000/-) and 14 December 2004 (deposit of Shs.420,000/-), totaling Shs.8,391,000/-. The Defendant's witness, Maureen Kiggumba, who received deposits and made refunds, confirmed the entries in the books were made by her and that the society was operating during the relevant period. The Defendant suggested a theft occurred, but adduced no evidence linking the Plaintiff to any loss.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff had a sum of Shs.8,391,000/- to his credit on 22/12/2004.
  2. Whether the Defendant breached its duty to the Plaintiff when it failed to honour the Plaintiff's demand.
  3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant.
  • Refund to the Plaintiff of Shs.8,391,000/- (eight million three hundred ninety one thousand only).
  • Damages: Shs.500,000/- (five hundred thousand only).
  • Interest on the principal sum at the rate of 25% per annum from the date of filing the suit (07/03/2005) till payment in full.
  • Interest on damages at the rate of 25% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Banking & Finance — Banker-Customer Relationship — Nature of Relationship
When a customer deposits money in a bank or deposit-taking institution, the money becomes the property of the institution and the institution becomes indebted to the customer for an equivalent sum.
Banking & Finance — Banker's Duty — Repayment on Demand
The banker's duty to a customer is to repay the deposited money or any part of it upon demand being made by the customer.
Banking & Finance — Defences to Non-Payment — Loss Through Theft
Where a bank suffers theft of funds, the loss is occasioned to the bank, not to the depositor. For the bank to succeed in its defence, it must show that the customer's loss was attributable to the customer's own negligence which was the proximate cause of the loss and immediately connected with the theft.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Damages for Failure to Pay Debt
Where a person is entitled to a liquidated amount and has been deprived of it through the wrongful act of another person, interest should be awarded from the date of filing the suit on the basis that the defendant has kept the plaintiff out of his money and has had the use of it.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Civil Cases
The burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue. When that party adduces evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that what he asserts is true, he shifts the burden of proof and his allegation is presumed true unless the opponent adduces evidence to rebut the presumption.

Cases cited (1)

  • Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 31 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

John Museveni v Kikamulo Co-operative Savings and Credit Society (HCT-00-CC-CS 192 of 2005) [2006] UGCommC 6 (19 February 2006)
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.