Wakilii

Nabimanya Mark v Muwumuza Charles Jeremiah (Civil Suit 684 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 243 · 2026 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of friendly loan agreement with interlocutory judgment granted under Order 9 rules 6 and 8 CPR
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with orders for payment of principal sum, general damages, interest, and costs

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

Where a defendant fails to file a defence to a claim for a liquidated demand arising from a friendly loan agreement, the court may enter judgment under Order 9 rule 6 CPR for the principal sum plus interest and costs. The plaintiff who advanced UGX 512,550,000 under a three-month loan agreement was entitled to full repayment of the principal, general damages for breach, and interest at court rate from judgment until payment in full.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with orders for payment of principal sum, general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

On 23 July 2024, the defendant approached the plaintiff requesting a friendly loan of UGX 512,550,000. The parties executed a friendly loan agreement on the same day under which the defendant agreed to repay the loan within three months. The defendant made no payments during the agreed period or thereafter. The plaintiff sent several reminders including one from his lawyers but the defendant did not respond. The plaint was filed on 11 June 2025. Summons to file a defence was served on the defendant on 28 August 2025. The defendant failed to file a defence. The plaintiff applied for and was granted interlocutory judgment under Order 9 rules 6 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The matter proceeded to formal proof.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of the monies lent to the defendant as claimed.
  2. What remedies are available to the plaintiff?

Orders

  • The defendant breached the friendly loan agreement between himself and the plaintiff.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay to the plaintiff UGX 512,550,000 being the unpaid amount arising from the friendly loan.
  • The plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 50,000,000.
  • The plaintiff is awarded interest on the unpaid sum of UGX 512,550,000 and general damages of UGX 50,000,000 at court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • The plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Judgment — Order 9 rule 6 vs Order 9 rule 8 — Liquidated Demands
Order 9 rule 6 CPR applies to liquidated demands where the defendant fails to file a defence, while Order 9 rule 8 applies to situations where the value of goods is not ascertainable or pecuniary damages require assessment such as claims for general damages.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Loan Agreements — Failure to Repay
Where a defendant enters into a loan agreement and fails to perform the obligation to repay within the agreed period, the defendant is in breach of contract and the plaintiff is entitled to a remedy including refund of the principal sum.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Breach of Contract — Assessment
The general intention of the law in awarding damages for breach of contract is to place the plaintiff in the position he or she would have been in had the contract been performed, and the court will assess general damages based on inconvenience and economic loss caused to the plaintiff.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Hallmark Enterprises Friends Sacco Limited v Kwesiga Stephen (High Court Civil Suit No. 657 of 2017)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006)
  • Uganda Telecom v Tanzanite Corporation [2005] EA 351

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nabimanya Mark v Muwumuza Charles Jeremiah (Civil Suit 684 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 243 (30 March 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.