Wakilii

Mandera v Hyensi (Civil Suit 136 of 2021)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 95 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of liquidated sum arising from friendly loan and alleged breach of settlement commitment
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff for UGX 210,000,000 plus costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations fading — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. 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 High Court held that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff for UGX 210,000,000 as the outstanding balance on a friendly loan of UGX 300,000,000, having admitted partial payment of UGX 90,000,000 in his pleadings. The court rejected the defendant's later testimony denying that payment as an impermissible departure from pleadings. The court found the plaintiff did not sell the collateral land; rather, the defendant's son sold it under a power of attorney executed by the defendant. The court declined to enforce a criminal settlement commitment for UGX 50,000,000 as it was unrelated to the civil loan claim.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff for UGX 210,000,000 plus costs

Facts

The plaintiff advanced a friendly loan of UGX 300,000,000 to the defendant on 10 March 2020, secured by land comprised in Plot 322 Block 356. The defendant failed to repay as agreed and went into hiding. The plaintiff traced and arrested the defendant. While in police custody on 28 September 2020, the defendant signed a criminal charge settlement commitment to pay an additional UGX 50,000,000. The defendant made partial payment of UGX 90,000,000. In his written statement of defence, the defendant admitted receiving the loan and paying UGX 90,000,000, leaving a balance of UGX 210,000,000. However, in his witness statement, the defendant denied making that payment and claimed the plaintiff sold the collateral land at UGX 90,000,000 and paid himself. The defendant's son, acting under a power of attorney dated 23 April 2021, sold the land on 25 April 2021 to a third party.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff to the sum of UGX 210,000,000 out of the UGX 300,000,000 friendly loan.
  2. Whether the land in Plot 322 Block 356 used as security was sold by the plaintiff to recover the loan of UGX 300,000,000.
  3. Whether the defendant is bound by the settlement commitment dated 28th September 2020 and whether the plaintiff is entitled to payment of the additional UGX 50,000,000 arising out of the settlement commitment.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay UGX 210,000,000 (Two Hundred and Ten Million Shillings) as outstanding balance on the friendly loan to the plaintiff.
  • Costs of this suit are awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Departure from Pleadings — Prohibition Under Order 6 Rule 7
A party is bound by its pleadings and may not, except by way of amendment, raise new grounds or make allegations inconsistent with previous pleadings. Where a defendant admits a fact in the written statement of defence but later contradicts that admission in testimony, the court will hold the party to the pleaded admission and reject the contradictory evidence as an impermissible departure from pleadings.
Contract Law — Money Had and Received — Elements and Burden of Proof
In a suit for money had and received, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the defendant received money rightfully belonging to the plaintiff. Such a claim seeks restitution where equity and good conscience require it, aims to prevent unjust enrichment, and is not premised on wrongdoing but on determining to which party the money rightfully belongs.
Evidence — Burden of Proof in Civil Litigation — Standard of Proof
In civil litigation, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove each element of the claim on a balance of probabilities. The plaintiff must establish why the defendant owes the money claimed before the court will grant the relief sought.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (7)

  • Kubajo v Drate (High Court Civil Suit No. 889 of 2020)
  • Kasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd (High Court Civil Case No. 1326 of 2000)
  • Tumwine v Magara (High Court Civil Suit No. 576 of 2004)
  • Printing and Numerical Registering Co. Vs Sampson [185] LR EQ 462 AT 467
  • Jani Properties Ltd v Dar es Salaam City Council [1966] EA 281
  • Struggle Ltd v Pan African Insurance Co. Ltd (1990) ALR 46
  • Makula international

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Mandera v Hyensi (Civil Suit 136 of 2021) [2024] UGHCCD 95 (10 June 2024)
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.