Wakilii

Raymond Ssekandi v Gerald Ampumurize and Others (Civil Suit No. 110 of 2023)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 220 · 2026 Judgment Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money had and received
Decision
Judgment partly allowed. Money had and received orders made against 2nd and 3rd Defendants for sums proved received. Claim against 1st Defendant dismissed. Claim for accumulated 5% monthly returns and general damages dismissed.

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

Held that a claim for money had and received requires strict proof of actual receipt by each defendant. The plaintiff proved receipt of UGX 6,350,000 by the second defendant and UGX 8,550,053 by the third defendant but failed to prove receipt by the first defendant or entitlement to claimed 5% monthly returns totaling UGX 75,000,000. Judgment entered for proved sums only with interest from date of judgment. General damages refused. Costs awarded proportionate to success.

Outcome

Judgment partly allowed. Money had and received orders made against 2nd and 3rd Defendants for sums proved received. Claim against 1st Defendant dismissed. Claim for accumulated 5% monthly returns and general damages dismissed.

Facts

In November 2020, the plaintiff, a Ugandan national living in the UK, was approached by the defendants to invest in a cocoa business allegedly to be started by the first defendant. The plaintiff agreed to invest with the understanding he would receive 5% monthly returns. Between November 2020 and May 2022, the plaintiff made payments totaling UGX 42,500,000, of which UGX 10,000,000 was later paid to a third party at his direction, leaving an alleged investment of UGX 32,500,000. The defendants denied receiving money for a cocoa business, contending that the second and third defendants had received gifts from the plaintiff during a romantic relationship, which the plaintiff denied. The defendants claimed the cocoa business was a sham. The defendants filed a defence but later withdrew legal representation, did not attend hearings, and the matter proceeded ex parte on plaintiff's evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff has proved his entitlement to recover the monies allegedly advanced to the Defendants.
  2. What remedies, if any, are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff against the 2nd Defendant, Ansasire Loyce, in the sum of UGX 6,350,000 as money had and received.
  • Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff against the 3rd Defendant, Ainomugisha Eunice Beckie, in the sum of UGX 8,550,053 as money had and received.
  • The Plaintiff's claim against the 1st Defendant, Gerald Ampumurize, is dismissed for want of proof.
  • The Plaintiff's claim for UGX 75,000,000, being the alleged accumulated investment together with the claimed 5% monthly return, is declined for want of sufficient proof.
  • The Plaintiff's claim for general damages is dismissed.
  • The decretal sums awarded against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants shall attract interest at the court rate from the date of this judgment until payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff shall recover costs of the suit from the 2nd and 3rd Defendants only, such costs to be taxed if not agreed.

Rules and key headnotes

Money Had and Received — Elements of the Cause of Action
In a claim for money had and received, the plaintiff must prove three essential elements: (a) that the defendant received the monies in question; (b) that the monies were advanced for a purpose or consideration which entitled the plaintiff to their return if that purpose failed or was not fulfilled; and (c) that the defendant has retained those monies without lawful justification and has failed to refund them.
Money Had and Received — Nature of Action — Restitutionary Not Compensatory
An action for money had and received is restitutionary in nature, aimed at reversing unjust enrichment rather than compensating for breach of contract. The essence of the action is not whether the defendant committed a wrong, but whether the defendant has retained money which, in justice and equity, belongs to another.
Money Had and Received — Burden and Standard of Proof — Strict Proof Required
In a claim for money had and received, actual receipt by each defendant must be strictly proved. Liability cannot be imposed merely because a defendant was alleged to be involved in the underlying arrangement. Actual receipt, agency, or beneficial retention must be established by credible evidence. The fact that a defendant fails to adduce evidence does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden to prove receipt on a balance of probabilities.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Ex Parte Proceedings
The absence of evidence or submissions by a defendant does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to judgment. A plaintiff must still succeed on the strength of his own case and discharge the burden of proof imposed by law. The court remains under a duty to subject the plaintiff's evidence to scrutiny and determine whether it establishes the claim on a balance of probabilities notwithstanding the defendant's failure to prosecute their defence.
Interest — Contractual Interest — Proof Required
Where a plaintiff claims contractual interest at a specified rate (such as 5% monthly), the plaintiff must adduce sufficient cogent evidence establishing a clear, enforceable and certain agreement binding the defendant to pay that rate. Ledgers or computations produced by the plaintiff cannot, without more, ground an award of contractual interest.
Money Had and Received — General Damages Not Recoverable
In a restitutionary claim for money had and received, the principal remedy is restoration of the money unjustly retained. Where the plaintiff has not proved any separate injury, loss or inconvenience beyond the deprivation of the money itself, an award of general damages would risk overcompensating the plaintiff for the same loss and is therefore not warranted.
Costs — Partial Success — Proportionate Award
Where a plaintiff succeeds only partially and only against some defendants, costs should be awarded proportionate to the extent of success and only against those defendants against whom the plaintiff succeeded.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (6)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Raymond Ssekandi v Gerald Ampumurize and Others (Civil Suit No. 110 of 2023) [2026] UGHCCD 220 (13 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.