Wakilii

Prestige Auto Holdings Ltd v Tumwesigye Julius (Civil Suit 308 of 2021)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 255 · 2026 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for money had and received arising from alleged unauthorised transfers from plaintiff's bank account
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with orders for refund of UGX 170,520,000, general damages of UGX 10,000,000, interest at 6% per annum, 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

The High Court held that a former Finance and Systems Manager who irregularly received UGX 170,520,000 into his personal bank account from his employer's KCB float account, and who failed to produce credible evidence that he remitted the funds to company directors or otherwise applied them for the employer's benefit, was liable to refund the sum under the doctrine of money had and received. The Court awarded the full amount received plus general damages and interest, but declined exemplary damages.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with orders for refund of UGX 170,520,000, general damages of UGX 10,000,000, interest at 6% per annum, and costs

Facts

Prestige Auto Holdings Ltd employed Tumwesigye Julius as Finance and Systems Manager from November 2020 to May 2021. The plaintiff operated a KCB float agent account used for payments including URA obligations and driving school fees. The account was linked to a float machine to which the defendant had access and knowledge of the PIN. In May 2021, the plaintiff noticed unusual transactions and commissioned an audit covering January to May 2021. The audit revealed that UGX 200,720,000 had been transferred from the plaintiff's KCB float account to three individual accounts: UGX 170,520,000 to the defendant's account, UGX 21,970,000 to Walugembe Moses, and UGX 8,230,000 to Ntambi Hussein. The defendant admitted receiving funds into his account but claimed the transfers were made at the instance of company directors as part of a scheme to reflect training-ground expenses and avoid taxes, and that he remitted the funds to a director via mobile money. The defendant produced no evidence of the alleged onward remittance.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant fraudulently transferred UGX 200,933,996 from the plaintiff's bank account without authorisation.
  2. Whether the plaintiff suffered financial or economic loss as a result.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The defendant, Tumwesigye Julius, shall pay the plaintiff, Prestige Auto Holdings Ltd, the sum of UGX 170,520,000.
  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff general damages of UGX 10,000,000.
  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff interest on the sum of UGX 10,000,000 at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff's costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Restitution — Money Had and Received — Employee Receipt of Employer Funds
Where a former employee receives money into his personal bank account from his employer's account and fails to produce credible evidence that the funds were remitted to the employer's principals or otherwise applied for the employer's benefit, the employee is liable to refund the sum under the doctrine of money had and received, as the recipient is regarded as having received the money to the use of the employer and the law imposes an obligation to repay.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Civil Proceedings — Balance of Probabilities
In civil proceedings, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove its case on a balance of probabilities in accordance with section 102 of the Evidence Act, which provides that the burden of proof lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment — Loss from Unauthorised Receipt of Funds
General damages flow directly, naturally and probably from the wrongful act complained of and compensate the aggrieved party for loss, inconvenience and hardship occasioned by the wrongful conduct. Where an employee irregularly receives and appropriates an employer's funds, the employer is entitled to general damages for the deprivation of use of the money and the costs of investigating the loss.
Damages & Quantum — Exemplary Damages — Exceptional Circumstances — Test for Award
Exemplary damages are awarded only in exceptional circumstances, including where the defendant's conduct is shown to have been oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional. Mere unauthorised receipt and retention of an employer's funds, without evidence of oppressive or arbitrary conduct, does not warrant exemplary damages.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Discretion of Court — Rate on General Damages
Interest is awarded at the discretion of the Court pursuant to section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act. In an action for money had and received, the Court may award interest on general damages at a rate of 6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (6)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Prestige Auto Holdings Ltd v Tumwesigye Julius (Civil Suit 308 of 2021) [2026] UGHCCD 255 (29 July 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.