Wakilii

Kensheka v Uganda Development Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 129 of 2018)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 278 · 2022 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal from a High Court (Commercial Division) judgment dismissing a civil suit for refund of money deposited
Decision
Appeal dismissed; trial court decision upheld with each party bearing own costs

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 of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that the appellant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent bank was unjustly enriched at her expense. The UGX 84,000,000 deposited was part payment of the security margin owed by ABA Trade International Limited under a trade finance facility with the bank, and was received on ABA's behalf. For the doctrine of unjust enrichment or money had and received to apply, the recipient must have been enriched by a benefit at the plaintiff's expense, which was not established. The bank derived no benefit from the funds. On costs, the Court varied the trial court's order and directed each party to bear its own costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; trial court decision upheld with each party bearing own costs

Facts

In 2010 the respondent bank advanced a Euro trade finance facility to ABA Trade International Limited to import trucks and accessories. The appellant sought to purchase a Mercedes Benz Actros truck plus accessories from ABA Trade International. She alleged a senior banking officer of the respondent advised her to make a deposit with the bank to secure her position as purchaser, and provided the bank's account details. She deposited UGX 84,000,000 by RTGS from her Stanbic account. The trade financing arrangement failed; the bank took possession of the consignment and the trucks were sold to third parties. The appellant claimed she received no benefit and the bank refused to refund her money. The respondent maintained the deposit was part payment of the security margin owed by ABA under the facility, received on ABA's behalf, and that the contractual relationship for the goods was between the appellant and ABA. A director of ABA testified the deposit formed part of the company's receivables from the appellant.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant was entitled to a refund of the money deposited on the principle of money had and received.
  2. Whether the respondent was unjustly enriched by the appellant's deposit.
  3. Whether the trial court properly awarded costs against the appellant.

Orders

  • This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
  • Costs of this appeal are to be borne by each party individually.

Rules and key headnotes

Restitution — Unjust Enrichment — Essential Ingredients
For the doctrine of unjust enrichment to arise, the defendant must have been enriched by the receipt of a benefit, that enrichment must be at the expense of the plaintiff, and the retention of the benefit must be unjust; absent any of these elements no obligation to make restitution arises.
Money Had and Received — Funds Received on Behalf of Third Party
A bank that receives money as part payment of a security margin owed by a borrower under a trade finance facility, and which derives no benefit from those funds, cannot be held liable to refund the depositor under the principle of money had and received where the money was received on behalf of the borrower.
Burden of Proof — Civil Cases — Balance of Probabilities
In civil cases the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the case on a balance of probabilities, including, in a restitution claim, proof that the defendant enriched itself at the plaintiff's expense.
Costs — Discretion of the Court — Departure from Costs Following the Event
Although costs ordinarily follow the event, the appellate court may, considering the circumstances of the transaction, exercise its discretion to order that each party bear its own costs.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (7)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Shenol and Another vs. Maxmov, [2OO5] E.A zaO
  • Fibrosa Spolka Akeyjna vs. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd, ll942l2 ALLDR L22
  • Mahabir Kishore and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1990 AIR 313 or 1989 SCR(3) 596
  • JVsubuga as. Kanruma [7978] HCB 3O7
  • Kiska Ltd v. De Angelis, [1969]1 EA 6
  • Devran Nanji Dattani vs. Haridas Kalidas Dawda, lL949l, 16 E.A.C.A.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kensheka v Uganda Development Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 129 of 2018) [2022] UGCA 278 (25 November 2022)
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.