Nsubuga Bosco v Centenary Bank Ltd (Civil Suit No. 38 of 2008)
Observed later treatment
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
Plaintiff's claim for recovery of USD 150,500 allegedly transmitted from Australia but not credited to his Centenary Bank account dismissed for failure to prove transmission. The two illegible documents produced were not reliable evidence. Court granted leave to reissue claim if satisfactory evidence of the transmission is subsequently produced.
Outcome
Claim dismissed with liberty to reissue upon production of satisfactory evidence
Facts
Plaintiff claimed USD 150,500 allegedly transmitted from Commonwealth Bank Australia by R.A. Richardson on 2 October 2006 was not credited to his account (No. 2520015270) at Centenary Bank, Entebbe Road branch. Plaintiff produced two illegible documents purporting to show transmission instructions dated 2 October 2006 and payment on 4 October 2006. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend claim from the original 300 million shillings. Defendant produced bank statements for plaintiff's account from 2002 to 2007 showing no credit of USD 150,500. Court ordered plaintiff to produce evidence that monies left payer's account and confirmation from Commonwealth Bank that monies were dispatched. No such evidence was produced.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff proved that USD 150,500 was transmitted to his account at Centenary Bank.
- Whether illegible documents can constitute sufficient evidence of a bank transfer.
Orders
- Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
- Leave granted to plaintiff to reissue claim if satisfactory evidence of monies sent is produced.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases citing this judgment (3)
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.
- Sserwanga and Another v Commissioner for Land Registration (Civil Miscellaneous Application 56 of 2024)
- Nakato v The Management Committee of Kyamulibwa Mixed Primary School (Miscellaneous Application 208 of 2022)
- Jenifer Nakato v Management Committee Of Kyamulibwa Mixed Primary School (Civil Appeal 65 of 2017)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.