Wakilii

Mariam Namutebi Bitalo v Hadijja Nassuna Bitalo and Another (Civil Suit No. 534 of 2017)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 184 · 2026 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for refund of monies and damages for alleged breach of contract
Decision
Suit dismissed in its entirety

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 High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for refund of monies allegedly sent for construction of a house. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities the existence of a valid contract with the defendants, the actual amount of money received by the defendants, or that the defendants retained money without providing consideration. The arrangement between the parties was found to be a mutual sibling relationship lacking the essential elements of a valid contract, including certainty of terms, consideration, and intention to create legal relations.

Outcome

Suit dismissed in its entirety

Facts

The plaintiff, a Ugandan resident in Switzerland, claimed she entered a verbal agreement in 2006 with the defendants (her siblings) to construct a three-storey rental house on her land at Busega Natete. She alleged she sent Swiss Francs 107,601 (approximately UGX 402,248,046) between 2007 and 2009 through the defendants for construction purposes. When she visited Uganda in 2012 and 2015, she found only a foundation. The defendants denied any binding contract, stating they merely assisted as relatives in supervising construction based on specific instructions from the plaintiff for various purposes including house bills, school fees, and construction services. The defendants claimed all monies received were applied as instructed and the plaintiff inspected the work annually.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendants.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of any monies had and received by the defendants.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation — Essential Elements — Certainty of Terms
For a valid contract to exist, there must be certainty regarding the actual agreement between the parties and the terms thereof. Where the evidence does not establish the essential elements of a valid contract including certainty of terms, consideration, and intention to create legal relations, no enforceable contract exists.
Contract Law — Intention to Create Legal Relations — Domestic and Social Arrangements
In domestic and social relation dealings between family members, there is a presumption that parties do not intend to be legally bound. This presumption can be rebutted if parties can show there was intention to be legally bound, but mere business-like conduct without other evidence is insufficient to establish such intention where the arrangement is between siblings assisting one another.
Contract Law — Form — Writing Requirement — Contracts Act s.9(5)
Under section 9(5) of the Contracts Act Cap 284, a contract the subject matter of which exceeds twenty-five currency points (UGX 500,000) shall be in writing. However, failure to reduce a contract to writing does not negate existence of a valid contract provided the facts disclose an agreement bearing all the elements of a valid contract, and the conduct of the parties or partial writing serves as evidence of the contract's existence.
Contract Law — Money Had and Received — Requirements for Recovery
To maintain an action for money had and received, a plaintiff must show: (a) they had a contract with the defendant whose terms became unenforceable; (b) the defendant received money under the contract for which they provided no consideration; and (c) retention of the money by the defendant would amount to unjust enrichment. Where no valid contract is established and the plaintiff fails to prove the amount received or that the defendant retained money without explanation, the claim for money had and received must fail.
Civil Procedure — Burden of Proof — Balance of Probabilities
In civil proceedings, the burden of proof lies upon the party who alleges. The plaintiff must prove their claims on a balance of probabilities. Where the evidence is in equilibrium or where the plaintiff leads no better evidence to disprove the defendant's explanations, the burden upon the plaintiff is not executed and the claim must fail.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Hydro Engineering Services Co. Uganda Limited v Thorne International Boiler Services Limited (HCCS No. 818 of 2003)
  • Parker v Clark (1960) 1 WLR 286
  • Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (HCCS No. 580 of 2003)
  • Ndyowayesu v Serubiri (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2021)
  • Clothlink (U) Limited v African Trade Investments Fund Limited and Another (HCCS No. 469 of 2011)
  • Shenoi and Another v Maximou [2005] EA 280
  • Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edition, Vol. 3 para 421

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mariam Namutebi Bitalo v Hadijja Nassuna Bitalo and Another (Civil Suit No. 534 of 2017) [2026] UGHCCD 184 (8 June 2026)
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.