Wakilii

Kigayaza Samuel v Bank of Africa Uganda Ltd and Another (Civil Suit No. 102 of 2014)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 260 · 2017 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation
Decision
Suit against 1st defendant dismissed; interlocutory judgment previously entered against 2nd defendant who did not enter appearance

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 held that the plaintiff breached the contract by failing to pay the full deposit by the stipulated deadline and that the bank's cancellation of the offer was justified. Although the 2nd defendant, a bank employee, made fraudulent misrepresentations to the plaintiff about where to deposit funds, the court found that the 2nd defendant acted outside the scope of his employment as a recoveries officer and the bank was not vicariously liable for his conduct. The suit against the 1st defendant was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Suit against 1st defendant dismissed; interlocutory judgment previously entered against 2nd defendant who did not enter appearance

Facts

The 1st defendant bank advertised property for sale. The plaintiff offered to purchase it for UGX 200,000,000, which the bank accepted. The offer required payment of UGX 150,000,000 by 14 May 2013 and the balance by 30 May 2013 into a specified account. The plaintiff paid UGX 100,000,000 on 2 May 2013. On 14 May 2013, the 2nd defendant, a bank recoveries officer, told the plaintiff not to deposit funds into the specified account due to alleged problems and to use his personal account instead. The plaintiff complied, depositing UGX 70,000,000 into his personal account on 14 May. On 15 May, the plaintiff transferred the funds to the specified account and paid the remaining UGX 30,000,000 on 17 May, completing the purchase price. On 17 May 2013, the bank cancelled the offer on the ground that the full deposit had not been paid by 14 May as required. The plaintiff sued for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation, claiming the 2nd defendant induced him to delay payment. The 2nd defendant did not enter appearance and interlocutory judgment was entered against him.

Issues

  1. Whether or not the plaintiff has a cause of action against the 1st defendant.
  2. Whether or not the 2nd defendant made any misrepresentations in the course of his employment.
  3. Whether as a result of those representations the plaintiff incurred any loss.
  4. Whether or not the 1st defendant is vicariously liable for the 2nd defendant's misrepresentations.
  5. Whether the plaintiff breached the contract with the 1st defendant.
  6. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The plaintiff breached the contract with the 1st defendant for failure to comply with the terms of the offer.
  • The 2nd defendant made fraudulent misrepresentations to the plaintiff.
  • The 1st defendant is not vicariously liable for the 2nd defendant's misrepresentations.
  • The plaintiff does not have a cause of action against the 1st defendant.
  • The suit against the 1st defendant is dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Time of Performance — Strict Compliance with Payment Terms
Where an offer to purchase property contains a clear stipulation that a specified deposit must be paid by a certain date, failing which the offer will lapse, the offeree's failure to pay the full deposit by that deadline constitutes non-compliance with the terms of the offer and entitles the offeror to cancel the agreement notwithstanding that the offeree completes payment shortly thereafter.
Tort Law — Fraudulent Misrepresentation — Elements — Knowledge of Falsity
Fraudulent misrepresentation is established where a false statement of fact is made knowingly, without belief in its truth, or recklessly, careless whether it is true or false, and that statement induces the other party to act to their detriment.
Employment & Labour — Vicarious Liability — Scope of Employment — Acts Outside Authority
An employer is not vicariously liable for the fraudulent acts of an employee where the employee acted outside the scope of his authorized duties and on a frolic of his own. The employer is liable only for torts committed by the employee in the course of the agency and within the scope of the agency, unless the employer expressly authorized the acts or subsequently adopted them.
Commercial Law — Property Sales by Auctioneers — Authorized Agents — Dealing with Proper Representatives
Where a bank advertises property for sale through an auctioneer, a prospective purchaser must deal with the authorized auctioneer and not with other bank employees who lack authority to handle the sale. Representations made by unauthorized employees do not bind the bank.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (6)

  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov (1971) EA 514
  • Esther Ssempebwa v The Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust (High Court Civil Suit No. 954 of 2004)
  • Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337
  • Lloyd v Grace Smith and Company [1912] AC 716
  • Avi Enterprises Ltd v Orient Bank Ltd and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 147 of 2012)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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

↓ Download PDF

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

Kigayaza Samuel v Bank of Africa Uganda Ltd and Another (Civil Suit No. 102 of 2014) [2017] UGCommC 260 (5 May 2017)
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.