Kasulu Paul v Nsiika Financial Services Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 2347 of 2025)
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 High Court dismissed an application for discovery of loan documents relating to ten prior loan facilities, holding that documents concerning facilities other than the loan in dispute were irrelevant and immaterial to the main suit. The court further held that alleged discrepancies in the demand notice, account statement, and ledger extract required explanation during trial rather than pre-trial reconciliation, and that the application constituted a fishing expedition.
Outcome
Application for discovery dismissed with costs to the respondent
Facts
The applicant obtained a loan facility of UGX 30,000,000 from the respondent in May 2023, repayable within 24 months at 72% annual interest. The applicant subsequently filed a civil suit claiming breach of contract and seeking refund of UGX 53,477,810 allegedly paid under protest, alleging exorbitant interest rates, premature penalty charges, and computational contradictions between the demand notice, official account statement, and internal ledger extract. The respondent admitted the parties had previously entered into ten loan transactions. The applicant brought this interlocutory application seeking production of documents including reconciliation of the disputed figures, joint statements of account for all ten prior facilities, and all loan agreements and amortization schedules. The respondent opposed the application as a fishing expedition, arguing the documents related to facilities not in dispute and that discrepancies could be explained at trial.
Issues
- Whether the Court should grant an order for discovery of the documents sought by the applicant.
- What remedies are available to the parties.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
Cases cited (4)
- Patricia Mutesi v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 912 of 2016)
- John Kato v Muhlbauer AG and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 175 of 2011)
- Simbamanyo Estates Ltd and Another v Equity Uganda Ltd and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 583 of 2022)
- Kaweesi Sulaiman and 26 Others v Bank of Uganda and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 258 of 2022)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.