Wakilii

Prompt Facilities Limited v Isagara and Another (Civil Suit No. 214 of 2016)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 39 · 2021 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of loan debt
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff; Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay UGX 487,740,000 plus 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

The court held that the 1st Defendant had not fully repaid two loans totalling UGX 969,500,000. Of the UGX 1,270,000,000 the defendant claimed to have paid, only UGX 600,000,000 was attributable to the loans in suit; the remainder was paid toward other debts including building materials and loans from a third party. The principal balance of UGX 369,500,000 plus contractual interest of UGX 118,240,000 remained unpaid. The 2nd Defendant, as guarantor, was held jointly and severally liable. Judgment was entered for UGX 487,740,000 plus interest at 24% per annum from 6 April 2016.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff; Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay UGX 487,740,000 plus interest and costs

Facts

The 1st Defendant, managing director of Kwik Build Contractors Ltd, borrowed UGX 940,000,000 from the Plaintiff on 18 November 2014 and a further UGX 29,500,000 on 8 January 2015, totalling UGX 969,500,000. The loans were secured by a land title and a motor grader log book, and guaranteed by the 2nd Defendant. The loans attracted 2% monthly interest. The 1st Defendant made various payments totalling UGX 1,270,000,000 between May and December 2015, which he claimed fully discharged the debt. The Plaintiff contended that only UGX 600,000,000 was paid toward the loans in suit; the remainder was paid toward other debts including building materials supplied by the Plaintiff and loans from Asimori Money Lenders Ltd. The Plaintiff claimed UGX 487,740,000 comprising unpaid principal of UGX 369,500,000 and interest of UGX 118,240,000.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st Defendant breached the loan agreement made with the Plaintiff.
  2. Whether the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff.
  3. What remedies are available?

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff against both Defendants jointly and severally.
  • The Defendants to pay UGX 487,740,000.
  • Interest at 24% per annum from 6 April 2016 till payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Loan Agreements — Burden of Proof — Discharge of Debt
Where a debtor claims to have fully discharged a loan by making payments exceeding the principal sum, the debtor bears the burden of proving that each payment was applied to the specific loan in dispute and not to other debts owed to the same creditor.
Documentary Evidence — Payment Records — Appropriation of Payments
Where payment receipts and bank transfer records indicate that payments were made toward specific debts such as building materials or cement supply, those payments cannot be appropriated to a separate loan debt in the absence of evidence showing the creditor's consent to such appropriation.
Burden of Proof — Payments to Third Parties
A debtor who claims to have discharged a debt by making payments to a third party on the creditor's instructions must produce evidence of such instructions. In the absence of such evidence, payments to the third party cannot be credited against the debt owed to the creditor.
Guarantee — Joint and Several Liability
A guarantor who signs a loan agreement as guarantor is jointly and severally liable with the principal debtor for the full amount of the debt where the principal debtor defaults, and the guarantee is not discharged by partial payments made by the principal debtor.
Interest — Contractual Interest Rate — Judicial Discretion
Where parties to a loan agreement have agreed to a specific interest rate, the court will enforce that rate where it is justified by the circumstances, including the creditor's loss of use of the money and the agreed commercial terms. Interest is awarded at the court's discretion, exercised judiciously taking into account all circumstances of the case.

Cases cited (2)

  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Stephen Mobosi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1995)
  • Superior Construction Ltd v Notay Engineering Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 24 of 1992)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Prompt Facilities Limited v Isagara and Another (Civil Suit No. 214 of 2016) [2021] UGCommC 39 (24 August 2021)
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.