Kapeeka Coffee Works Limited and Another v Non -Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Civil Appeal 53 of 2000)
Observed later treatment
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 of Appeal held that the transfer of non-performing assets from Uganda Commercial Bank to NPART is statutory rather than contractual, governed by the NPART Statute and Regulations. Although a plaint need not contain every fact constituting a cause of action, it must show a violation of the plaintiff's right. The respondent's amended plaint failed to plead compliance with the mandatory requirement of regulation 4(b) of S.I. No. 76 of 1995 that notice of the assignment in the prescribed form be forwarded to the owner (debtor). This omission was fatal, rendering the plaint defective for disclosing no cause of action. The appeal was allowed and the plaint struck out.
Outcome
Appeal allowed; respondent's plaint struck out for non-disclosure of a cause of action
Facts
The respondent, the Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (NPART), sued the appellants and another for recovery of Shs. 839,030,582 being a non-performing asset assigned to it by Uganda Commercial Bank under the NPART Statute No. 11 of 1994. The claim was based on a Deed of Assignment dated 7 December 1995. The appellants had earlier applied for and obtained funding from UCB for the rehabilitation of their coffee hullery, secured by mortgage, and later defaulted and ceased operations. NPART claimed the appellants failed to repay the assigned debt. When the matter came before the NPART Tribunal, the appellants raised a preliminary objection that the amended plaint disclosed no cause of action. The Tribunal overruled the objection, prompting this appeal. The amended plaint pleaded notice of intention to sue but did not plead that notice of the statutory assignment, in the prescribed form, had been forwarded by the bank to the owner as required by regulation 4(b) of S.I. No. 76 of 1995.
Issues
- Whether the respondent's amended plaint disclosed a cause of action against the appellants.
- Whether failure to plead that notice of the statutory assignment had been forwarded to the debtor under regulation 4(b) of S.I. No. 76 of 1995 rendered the plaint defective.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Respondent's plaint struck out for disclosing no cause of action.
- Costs of the action in the Court of Appeal and in the Tribunal below awarded to the appellant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute No. 11 of 1994 s.11
- Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust Statute No. 11 of 1994 s.13(2)
- Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust Regulations 1995 (S.I. No. 76 of 1995) reg.3
- Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust Regulations 1995 (S.I. No. 76 of 1995) reg.4
Cases cited (2)
- Auto Garage v Motokov (1971) EA 514
- Cresta Holdings Ltd v Karlin (1959) 1 WLR 1055
Cases citing this judgment (2)
How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.