Wakilii

Kagyo Golola v Orient Bank Ltd (Misc. Application No. 150 of 2013)

High Court · [2013] UGHCCD 115 · 2013 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for discovery of documents arising from civil suit HCCS No. 010 of 2013
Decision
Application for discovery dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 dismissed an application for discovery of all documents relating to a third party's loan where the applicant had mortgaged his property as security. The application was premature because pleadings were incomplete, the request was not particularised, production without the borrower's consent would breach banker-customer confidentiality, and all relevant documents would be exhibited during mandatory scheduling conference.

Outcome

Application for discovery dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant owned land at Mutundwe comprised in Kyadondo Block 32 Plot 236. His friend Peter Ndigendawa asked him to provide his certificate of title to obtain a loan from Orient Bank. The applicant was taken to the bank and signed documents including a Power of Attorney but was not informed of the loan amount. In November 2012, the bank demanded payment of UGX 212,072,226 from both Kagyo Ndigendawa Peter and the applicant, and subsequently advertised the applicant's property for sale by auction. The applicant filed suit HCCS No. 010 of 2013 to save his property. The bank filed a defence producing some documents connecting the applicant to the loan. The applicant then brought this application seeking discovery of all documents relating to Peter Ndigendawa's loan to understand his connection to it.

Issues

  1. Whether discovery of all documents relating to Peter Ndigendawa's loan should be ordered at this stage of the proceedings.
  2. Whether the application for discovery is premature before the close of pleadings.
  3. Whether ordering production of all loan documents would breach banker-customer confidentiality.
  4. Whether the request for discovery amounts to a fishing expedition.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Discovery — Timing and Necessity
Discovery is not necessary at the stage of proceedings where pleadings are incomplete and all relevant documents will be exhibited during mandatory scheduling conference.
Civil Procedure — Discovery — Particularisation Required
An omnibus request for all documents relating to a matter without particularisation does not enable the respondent to categorise documents into privileged or non-privileged categories and will not be granted.
Banking & Finance — Banker-Customer Relationship — Confidentiality
Production of all documents relating to a customer's loan without that customer's consent constitutes a breach of confidentiality arising from the banker-customer relationship and provides a valid exception to granting discovery.
Civil Procedure — Discovery — Fishing Expedition
A request for discovery that is not particularised and seeks all documents relating to a matter amounts to a fishing expedition and will be refused as prejudicial to the respondent's interests.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.10 r.12
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 rr.9 & 24

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kagyo Golola v Orient Bank Ltd (Misc. Application No. 150 of 2013) [2013] UGHCCD 115 (16 September 2013)
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.