Letshego Uganda Limited v Kayanja George (Civil Suit No. 188 of 2023)

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.

Holding

The High Court Commercial Division held that the counter-defendant breached a loan agreement by defaulting on repayment of UGX 100,000,000 secured by mortgage. The court found a valid contract existed and the counter-defendant admitted obtaining the loan and paying only 75% before defaulting. The counter-claimant was entitled to recover the outstanding loan balance of UGX 103,085,221.29 and UGX 115,819,000 as money had and received, which the counter-defendant wrongfully retained after the mortgaged property's title was cancelled and the sale to a third party failed.

Outcome

Counterclaim succeeded; judgment entered against counter-defendant for outstanding loan, money had and received, general damages, interest and costs

Facts

The counter-defendant obtained a loan of UGX 100,000,000 from the counter-claimant on 28 May 2018, repayable over 36 months and secured by mortgage over land in Kyadondo Block 92B Plot 1442. The counter-defendant paid approximately 75% of the loan before defaulting. The counter-claimant exercised its statutory power of sale and sold the property to Express Ways International Limited for UGX 230,000,000, crediting net proceeds of UGX 115,819,000 to the counter-defendant's account. The counter-defendant then filed suit challenging the sale. However, the counter-defendant's title to the mortgaged property had been cancelled in separate proceedings (Buso Foundation Limited v Bob Mate Phillips & 3 Others Misc. Application No. 346/2018). Express Ways could not take possession and the counter-claimant refunded the purchase price. The counter-defendant's suit was dismissed for non-appearance and the counter-claimant's counterclaim proceeded ex parte.

Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff/counter-defendant has a cause of action against the counter-claimant?
2. Whether the plaintiff/counter-defendant breached the loan agreement?
3. Whether the counter-claimant is entitled to remedies sought?

Orders

• The counter-claimant shall recover from the counter-defendant its outstanding loan amount of UGX 103,085,221.29.
• The counter-claimant shall recover from the counter-defendant UGX 115,819,000 being money had and received.
• The counter-claimant is awarded general damages of UGX 20,000,000.
• The counter-claimant is awarded interest on the outstanding loan amount at court rate from the date of filing this suit till payment in full.
• The counter-defendant shall pay the costs of this suit to the counter-claimant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 9 Rule 22
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 9 Rule 20
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 17 Rule 4
• Contracts Act Cap 284 s.2
• Contracts Act Cap 284 s.9
• Tier 4 Microfinance Institutions and Money Lenders Act Cap 61 s.84(1)
• Evidence Act Cap 8 s.57
• Evidence Act Cap 8 s.101
• Evidence Act Cap 8 s.103
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.27

Cases cited (22)

• Nakawa Trading Co. Ltd v Coffee Marketing Board (Civil Suit No. 137 of 1991)
• Patel v Madhvani International Ltd (1992-1993) HCB 189
• Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (High Court Civil Suit No. 580 of 2003)
• Gab Holdings Limited versus Godfrey Nyakana & Anor
• Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
• Yakobo M.N Senungu & Others v Cresensio Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2014)
• Betty Kizito v David Kizito Kanonya and others (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2018)
• Gagawala Nursery Bed v Busingye Properties Limited (Civil Suit No. 96 of 2011)
• Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Haji Yahaya Sekalega T/A Sekalega Enterprises (High Court Civil Suit No. 185 of 2009)
• Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank [1990-1994] EA 117
• J.K. Patel v Spear Motors Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1991)
• Gloria Kubajo v Francis Drate (Civil Suit No. 889 of 2020)
• Moses v Macfarlane (1760) 2 Burr 1005
• Uganda Farmers Meat Co. Limited v Fresh Cuts Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 942 of 2020)
• Amos Mander v Byensi Jameson (High Court Civil Suit No. 136 of 2021)
• Uganda Wildlife Authority v Kuluo Joseph Andrew & 2 others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2011)
• Dharamshi v Karsan [1974] 1 EA 41
• Kampala International University and Others v Hon. Justice Prof. Dr. G.W. Kanyeihamba (Civil Appeal No. 368 of 2020)
• Gullabhai Ushillingi v Kampala Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1999)
• Begumisa Financial Services Ltd v General Holdings Ltd & Anor [2001] EA 28
• Kabandize John Baptist & 21 others v KCCA (Court of Appeal No. 36 of 2016)
• Buso Foundation Limited v Bob Mate Phillips & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 346 of 2018)

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.

• Namutebi Getrude and Others v Nsubuga Sediwala Micheal (Civil Suit 206 of 2025)

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