Wakilii

Mileva v KCB Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1194 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 99 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for discovery and production of documents arising from civil suit for alleged unauthorized withdrawals from bank account
Decision
Discovery application granted; Respondent ordered to produce internet banking policy documents within seven days

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time 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 an application for discovery of an internet banking policy governing e-banking services between a bank and customer was granted where the policy was referenced in the bank's own investigation report, was relevant to determining negligence and breach of banker-customer duties in respect of alleged unauthorized withdrawals, and was in the bank's possession. The bank's assertion that the policy was confidential was rejected as unsupported by evidence, and the customer had a right to access documents affecting her account in the absence of privilege.

Outcome

Discovery application granted; Respondent ordered to produce internet banking policy documents within seven days

Facts

The Applicant opened a bank account with the Respondent on 24 December 2020 and enrolled for e-banking services on 22 March 2021. On 27, 28 and 29 August 2022, UGX 121,025,185 was allegedly withdrawn from her account without consent through the e-banking service after she had instructed the bank to block her account. She filed a civil suit alleging breach of banker-customer relationship, negligence, and issuance of a false bank statement. The Applicant sought discovery of the internet banking policy that governed the e-banking relationship at the material times. The Respondent's investigation report referenced an internet banking policy but the bank refused disclosure, claiming the document was confidential and for internal use only. The bank later asserted no document called "internet banking policy" existed, but admitted the word was used loosely to refer to Terms and Conditions for e-banking.

Issues

  1. Whether the documents sought (internet banking policy) exist and have not been disclosed by the Respondent.
  2. Whether the internet banking policy is relevant to the matters in issue in the main suit.
  3. Whether the internet banking policy is in the possession, custody or power of the Respondent.
  4. Whether the Application for discovery is a fishing expedition.
  5. Whether the internet banking policy is confidential and privileged from discovery.

Orders

  • Application allowed with costs in the cause.
  • Respondent directed to avail the Applicant and Court a copy of the Policy, documents and Terms and Conditions that govern the relationship between the parties in respect of e-banking services within seven (7) days from the date of delivering this ruling.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Discovery — Prerequisites for Ordering Discovery
An order for discovery of documents can only be made where three prerequisites are met: (a) there is sufficient evidence that the documents exist which the other party has not disclosed; (b) the documents relate to the matter in issue in the action; and (c) there is sufficient evidence that the documents are in possession, custody or power of the other party. Where these prerequisites are established, the court has discretion whether or not to order disclosure.
Evidence — Discovery — Non-Privileged Documents
Discovery covers any non-privileged document that is relevant to the issues involved in the trial, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of such documents, which appear reasonably calculated to yield admissible evidence. It is designed to enable a party to obtain relevant information needed to prepare the party's case.
Banking & Finance — Banker-Customer Relationship — Duties and Obligations
The relationship of banker and customer is a contractual one, with the bank having duties relating to carrying out the customer's payment instructions, dealing with securities deposited with the bank, and the way the banker handles information concerning the affairs of the customer. These obligations are normally codified under the law or the terms and conditions of engagement between the bank and the customer. In the absence of codified duties, these duties can be implied.
Banking & Finance — Internet Banking Policy — Relevance to Banker's Duties
An internet banking policy or the terms and conditions governing e-banking services between a bank and customer is relevant to determining whether the bank breached its duty to the customer in respect of alleged unauthorized withdrawals. The policy creates the duties and obligations of both the bank and the customer, and it is from this policy that one can determine whether the bank's duty to the customer was breached.
Evidence — Confidentiality — Burden of Proof
Where a party claims that a document is confidential and refuses disclosure, that party bears the burden of adducing evidence in court to support the assertion of confidentiality. In the absence of evidence establishing privilege, a customer has the right to access documents that affect the customer's account.
Civil Procedure — Discovery — Fishing Expedition
An application for discovery is not a fishing expedition where the applicant clearly specifies what document is required and explains why the document is required. Where an applicant seeks to discover a specific document to prove an element of her case (such as negligence), and the document is relevant to the issues in the matter, the application is not a fishing expedition.
Evidence — Admissions — Party Estopped from Denying Existence of Document
Where a party references a document in its own investigation report and admits in correspondence that the document exists but is confidential, that party cannot later deny the existence of the document by claiming the word was used loosely or that no such document exists. The party is estopped from contradicting its own prior admissions.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (7)

  • John Kato v Muhlbauer AG and another (Miscellaneous Application No. 175 of 2011)
  • Simbamanyo Estates Ltd and another v Equity Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 583 of 2022)
  • Busongora Development Association Limited v Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited (Civil Suit No. 0048 of 2014)
  • Dresdner Bank A.G v Sango Bay Estates Ltd (No. 3) [1971] 1 EA 326
  • Olouch v Charagu [2003] 2 EA 651
  • Soon Yeon Kong and another v Attorney General (Constitutional Reference No. 06 of 2007)
  • Charles Harry Twagira and another v DFCU Bank Ltd (Civil Suit No. 188 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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mileva v KCB Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1194 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 99 (30 April 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.