Lubuulwa Tonny v Standard Chartered Bank (Civil Appeal 108 of 2012)
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, holding that a document annexed to the written statement of defence and agreed by both parties at the pre-trial scheduling conference was properly admitted in evidence, even though it was not formally marked as an exhibit. The court found the appellant had only 'booked' UGX 2,089,169,000 in new loans and top-ups disbursed during 2007, not the UGX 3.5 billion required to win the grand prize, since current loan totals included pre-2007 balances. It also held the appellant knew the awarded shares were restrictive and matured only during employment; having left voluntarily before maturity, he forfeited the GBP 2000 share award.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment for the respondent affirmed
Facts
The appellant was employed by the respondent bank between 2006 and 2009. In 2007, to boost sales, the bank ran promotions offering staff cash prizes and share offers for getting customers to procure loans. A grand prize was offered to any employee who 'booked' loans of a certain minimum amount within one year. The appellant claimed to have won the grand prize and to be entitled to an award of restrictive shares, both of which the bank denied. The appellant contended he had booked loans exceeding UGX 3.7 billion, relying on a current-loan-amount computation. The respondent maintained that figure included loans disbursed before 2007 and that only new loans and top-ups disbursed in 2007 counted. On the shares, the award was subject to conditions, including maturity only while employed. The appellant left employment voluntarily before the shares matured. The appellant sued in the High Court Commercial Division; the suit was dismissed, prompting this appeal.
Issues
- Whether the trial Judge erred in relying on a document annexed to the written statement of defence that had not been formally tendered as an exhibit.
- Whether the appellant had 'booked' loans of the minimum amount required to win the grand prize under the promotion.
- Whether custom or trade usage regarding the term 'booking' was properly imported into the contract.
- Whether the appellant was entitled to an award of restrictive shares (GBP 2000) notwithstanding his voluntary departure before maturity.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
- Evidence Act (Cap 6) s.57
- Evidence Act (Cap 6) s.56
- Evidence Act (Cap 6) s.15
- Civil Procedure Act (Cap 71)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order XII
- Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 30(1)
- Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 86(1)
Cases cited (7)
- Okwanga Anthony verses Uganda 2007-2008 HCB at P. 36
- Kasifa Kabusisi and Others v Francis Ndobaazi (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2005)
- Kibalama as Alfasan Cuba [2004] 2EA 746
- Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2009)
- Situma -vs- Regina
- Fr. Narcensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
- Des Raj Sharma vs R
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.