Wakilii

Nakku Joweria v Stanbic Bank (U) Limited [2026] UGCOMMC 368

High Court · 2026 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money and damages arising from unauthorised withdrawals from the plaintiff's bank account
Decision
Suit dismissed with costs to the defendant; plaintiff not entitled to any remedies sought

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 plaintiff sued her bank to recover UGX 68,000,000 lost through 17 unauthorised Flexipay withdrawals, alleging breach of the bank's duty of care. The court held that while a bank owes its customers a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care, that duty is not breached where the customer's own authentication credentials are compromised through loss of a phone and national ID that is not promptly reported to the bank. The court found the transactions were completed using the plaintiff's registered credentials, that unsuccessful enrolment attempts did not without more amount to suspicious activity requiring the bank to intervene, and that no breach by the bank was proved. The defendant was found not liable and the suit was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Suit dismissed with costs to the defendant; plaintiff not entitled to any remedies sought

Facts

The plaintiff held a savings account with the defendant bank opened in 2001, historically operated over the counter with a regular monthly insurance debit. Between 7 and 8 February 2023, UGX 68,000,000 was withdrawn through 17 unauthorised transactions via the defendant's Flexipay platform to unknown numbers. The plaintiff said she lost her phone (with her national ID kept behind it) on 6 February 2023 and reported to the network providers and police. Evidence showed the account was enrolled on Flexipay through the USSD code on 7 February 2023 using her registered credentials, after several failed enrolment attempts, with validation codes and transaction notifications sent to her registered number. A recorded interview indicated she reported the theft to police the following day and remained in communication with the person holding her phone until 10 February 2023, when a police reference was obtained. She reported the loss of funds to the bank only on 6 March 2023. The bank had offered to settle for half the sum, which the plaintiff rejected.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant bank owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff as its customer.
  2. Whether the defendant is liable for the unauthorised withdrawals made from the plaintiff's account.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The defendant is not liable for the unauthorized withdrawals on the plaintiff's account.
  • The suit is dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Banking & Finance — Banker-Customer Relationship — Duty of Care and Allocation of Loss for Unauthorised Transactions
A bank owes its customers a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in safeguarding accounts and processing transactions, but where a customer's authentication credentials are compromised and no breach of the bank's duty is established, liability cannot be imposed on the bank merely because unauthorised transactions occurred.
Banking & Finance — Mobile Banking — Customer's Duty to Promptly Report Loss of Phone or SIM to the Bank
A customer who loses a phone or the SIM card or number linked to their bank account must report the loss to the bank as soon as possible, not merely to the police or telecommunications provider, because the loss renders the account susceptible to third-party fraud.
Banking & Finance — Fraud Detection — Threshold for Treating Transactions as Suspicious
Unsuccessful enrolment or withdrawal attempts preceding successful transactions do not, without more, impose on a bank a duty to treat the transactions as suspicious; the threshold of suspicion is reached only where there are reasonable grounds, based on specific and clear indicators, to believe a payment instruction may facilitate fraud.
Evidence — Electronic Records — Assessment of Evidential Weight under the Electronic Transactions Act
Where an electronic recording is admitted without objection and a sufficient foundation is laid as to how it was generated, stored and produced, and the foundation is not materially controverted in cross-examination, the court will assess its evidential weight under section 7(4) of the Electronic Transactions Act and may rely on it, unsupported allegations of alteration notwithstanding.
Evidence — Cross-Examination — Rule in Browne v Dunn
A party who wishes to argue that a witness's evidence on a particular issue should not be accepted must put that challenge to the witness in cross-examination.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (7)

  • Aida Atiku v Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited (Civil Suit No. 754 of 2020)
  • Excellent Assorted Manufacturers Ltd & Another v DFCU Bank Limited & Another (Civil Suit No. 338 of 2017)
  • Jessica Kakooza v Ecobank (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 44 of 2014)
  • Equity Bank (U) Ltd v Bamwite Augustine Muhindo (Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2025)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Moses Rukidi Gabigogo (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2023)
  • Barclays Bank of Uganda Limited v Eron Kabachwamba (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2015)
  • Browne v Dunn (1894) 6 R 67 (HL)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakku Joweria v Stanbic Bank (U) Limited [2026] UGCOMMC 368 (3 August 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.