Wakilii

Mehari Habtemicheal Yedhego v Hermon Tesfalidet Ghebrat (Civil Suit 333 of 2018)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 139 · 2022 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of loan
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed plus interest and 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. 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

Held that the plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that he extended a loan of US $150,000 to the defendant pursuant to a written agreement dated 15 July 2016. The defendant failed to discharge the evidential burden of proving payment. The plaintiff was entitled to recover the full amount with interest at 8% per annum from the date payment fell due.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed plus interest and costs

Facts

On 15 July 2016, the plaintiff and defendant signed a loan agreement by which the defendant borrowed US $150,000 from the plaintiff, repayable in two instalments: US $100,000 on 31 August 2016 and US $50,000 on 30 September 2016. The plaintiff remitted the money through his cousin, Mr Samuel Tsegoi Kasete, in two instalments of US $75,000 each on 15 and 18 July 2016. The money was to be invested with profits to be shared equally. The defendant remitted only shs 100,000,000 from the profits but failed to refund the principal sum. The defendant claimed to have paid shs 360,000,000 directly to the plaintiff on 24 January 2017 in full settlement, but could produce no documentary evidence. The plaintiff's passport showed he was not in Uganda on that date. The defendant failed to appear at trial and the matter proceeded ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff extended a friendly loan facility amounting to US $150,000 to the defendant.
  2. Whether the defendant repaid the said loan facility of US $150,000 to the plaintiff.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant.
  • The defendant to pay the unpaid sum of US $150,000.
  • Interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 30 September 2016 until payment in full.
  • The defendant to pay the costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Loan Agreements — Burden of Proof — Prima Facie Case
In civil litigation, the burden of proof requires the plaintiff creditor to prove on a balance of probability the entitlement to the relief sought by establishing the existence of a contract and its essential terms, a breach of duty imposed by the contract, and resultant damages. Once the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case, the evidential burden shifts to the defendant to controvert it, otherwise judgment must be entered in favour of the plaintiff.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Negative Averments — General Rule
The general rule is that a party is not called upon to prove negative averments, even when they may be necessary to the pleading. It is often impracticable to prove a negative with satisfactory evidence, hence a party should not be required to prove a negative.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Payment — Debtor's Evidential Burden
Where the creditor introduces evidence of the debt establishing a prima facie case, the burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to the debtor, who is then under a duty of producing evidence to show payment. When the existence of a debt is fully established, the burden of proving that it has been extinguished by payment devolves upon the debtor who offers such defence, and the debtor has the evidential burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Specific Performance — Right to Recovery
A breach of contract includes circumstances where an obligation stated in the contract is not completed on time. Under section 64(1) of the Contracts Act 2010, where a party to a contract is in breach, the other party may obtain an order of court requiring the party in breach to specifically perform the promise under the contract, and is entitled to recover the amount outstanding.
Contract Law — Interest on Debt — Commercial Rate — Entitlement
Upon ascertainable amounts of money being payable at ascertainable times, the persons entitled to receive the money are entitled to interest from the date due. In all cases where payment of a just debt has been improperly withheld, and it is fair and equitable that the party in default should make compensation, it is incumbent upon the court to allow interest at such rate and for such time as the court may think right.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (1)

  • London, Chatham & Dover Railway Company v South Eastern Railway Company [1892] 1 Ch 120

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.

Mehari Habtemicheal Yedhego v Hermon Tesfalidet Ghebrat (Civil Suit 333 of 2018) [2022] UGCommC 139 (30 May 2022)
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.