Wakilii

Nalubega Margaret v Equity Bank (U) Limited (Civil Suit No. 904 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 338 · 2025 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaration of non-indebtedness, clearance of credit record, and damages for alleged defamation and business loss
Decision
Suit dismissed; plaintiff's claims for declaration of non-indebtedness, clearance of credit record, and damages all rejected

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 court held that both the plaintiff and defendant contributed to the delay in clearing the plaintiff's credit record with the Credit Reference Bureau. While the defendant had a duty to promptly submit updated credit information to the Credit Reference Bureau following discharge of the plaintiff's loan obligations under a consent judgment, the plaintiff also had access to her credit report and could have facilitated the process. The plaintiff failed to prove any actual loss or damages resulting from the delay, and failed to establish the elements of defamation. The suit was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.

Outcome

Suit dismissed; plaintiff's claims for declaration of non-indebtedness, clearance of credit record, and damages all rejected

Facts

The plaintiff had a loan facility with the defendant bank. Following Civil Suit No. 630 of 2016, a consent judgment was entered on 10 June 2019 discharging the plaintiff of her loan obligations, releasing her certificates of title, and awarding her UGX 50,000,000 as damages and costs. The plaintiff subsequently requested clearance of her Credit Reference Bureau (CRB) financial card. The plaintiff alleged that her credit record continued to show her as a defaulter owing UGX 149,073,000, which prevented her from obtaining new loan facilities from other financial institutions. The plaintiff claimed she was unable to secure a loan of UGX 200,000,000 for her businesses and that a women's organisation she directed was denied a loan of UGX 120,000,000. The defendant contended it had fulfilled all obligations under the consent judgment and that clearance of CRB records was the function of the Credit Reference Bureau (Compuscan/Creditinfo), an independent entity regulated by Bank of Uganda. The defendant argued it had requested the plaintiff's credit report to facilitate rectification but did not receive it until 19 September 2023, at which point it immediately forwarded instructions to Creditinfo, which updated the records by 21 September 2023.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant is liable for the non-clearance of the mortgage off the CRB financial card?
  2. What are the remedies available?

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Suit dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Credit Reference Bureau — Duty to Update Credit Records — Respective Obligations of Bank and Borrower
Where a borrower has fully discharged loan obligations, the lending bank has a duty to submit updated credit information to the Credit Reference Bureau within the statutory timeframe, but the Credit Reference Bureau cannot act to rectify records without confirmation and instructions from the financial institution; both bank and borrower may contribute to delay where the bank fails to proactively update records and the borrower fails to provide necessary documentation despite having access to credit reports.
Credit Reference Bureau Regulations — Procedure for Rectification of Credit Records
Under regulation 40(3) of the Financial Institutions (Credit Reference Bureau) Regulations 2022, when a customer complains about inaccurate credit information, the financial institution is required to immediately notify the Credit Reference Bureau; the Credit Reference Bureau must then conduct an investigation within seven working days and contact the data provider (the bank) to confirm accuracy of information.
Preliminary Objection — Cause of Action — Test for Disclosure
A plaintiff discloses a cause of action where the plaint shows that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, that the right was violated, and that the defendant is liable for the violation; in determining whether a cause of action exists, the court must assume the averments in the plaint are true and consider the plaint together with anything attached to form part of it.
Defamation — Elements — Burden of Proof
To establish defamation, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a statement about the plaintiff to another, that the statement was injurious to the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society, that the statement was false, and (where the plaintiff is a public figure or involved in a newsworthy event) that the defendant made the false statement intentionally or with reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights; mere failure to update credit records without evidence that the defendant provided wrong information does not constitute defamation.
Consent Judgment — Binding Effect — Enforcement
A consent judgment is legally binding on the parties that signed it and constitutes a decree that must be performed according to its terms; where parties agree to discharge of loan obligations and clearance of credit records, the bank's duty extends to ensuring updated information is submitted to the Credit Reference Bureau.
Burden of Proof — Damages — Requirement for Proof of Loss
In civil matters, the plaintiff bears the burden to adduce evidence to prove the case on a balance of probabilities; where a plaintiff claims damages for business loss resulting from failure to clear credit records, the plaintiff must adduce evidence of actual loss incurred, including evidence that loan applications were submitted to and rejected by financial institutions; in the absence of such evidence, the claim for damages fails.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (17)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372
  • Sabiiti Eric v Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 316 of 2017)
  • Printing & Numerical Registering Co. v Sampson (1875) LR 19 Eq 462
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Limited v Uganda Crocs Limited (2001-2005) HCB 68
  • Huddersfield Banking Co. Ltd vs Henry Lister & Co. Ltd (1985) 2 Ch. D 273
  • Peatfield Bodgener Architects v International School of Uganda (Civil Suit No. 153 of 2013)
  • Freeman & Lockeyer v Buckurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480
  • Auto Garage v Motokov (No. 3) [1971] EA 514
  • Kapeka Coffee Works Ltd v Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Crane Bank Limited (in receivership) v Sudhir Rupaleria & Another (Civil Appeal No. 252 of 2019)
  • Attorney General v Oluoch [1972] EA 392
  • Cooke vs Gull LR 8E. P 116
  • Read vs Brown 22 QBD P.31
  • Jeraj Shariff & Co. v Chotal Fancy Stores [1960] EA 374
  • Elly B Mugabi v Nyanza Textile Industries Ltd [1992-93] HCB 227
  • Esther Kisaakye v Sarah Kadama (Civil Suit No. 194 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nalubega Margaret v Equity Bank (U) Limited (Civil Suit No. 904 of 2022) [2025] UGCommC 338 (22 September 2025)
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.