Wakilii

Seruwagi v Jaffery Forex Bureau Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2009)

Court of Appeal · [2018] UGCA 245 · 2018 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court (Commercial Division) judgment dismissing a suit for recovery of money
Decision
Appeal allowed; judgment entered for the appellant for UGX 10,000,000 with 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 of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial Judge erred in finding the appellant deposited only UGX 1,111,000 rather than UGX 11,111,000. The respondent, having alleged that the appellant's receipt was a forgery, bore the burden of proving that allegation and failed to do so. The cashier alleged to have issued the receipt was not called, permitting a negative inference against the respondent, whose managing director's evidence on forgery was without foundation and effectively hearsay. The respondent's accounting system was flawed and it withheld its receipt book. The appellant proved his deposit on a balance of probabilities and was entitled to recover UGX 10,000,000 with interest.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; judgment entered for the appellant for UGX 10,000,000 with interest and costs

Facts

The appellant had a longstanding business relationship with the respondent forex bureau, routinely depositing money that would accumulate before being converted into foreign currency and transmitted to his suppliers in Nairobi. He claimed that on 10th December 2002 he deposited UGX 11,111,000 and obtained a receipt (Exhibit P34) signed by the respondent's cashier, Justine Namujju. When his supplier reported a shortfall, the appellant learned the respondent's records showed only UGX 1,111,000 deposited on that date. The respondent alleged the receipt was a forgery and that its accounting system of cashbook, ledger and computer entries recorded the lower figure. The respondent's managing director testified that the cashier had not issued the receipt, but the cashier herself was not called to testify, nor was the respondent's receipt book produced in court. The appellant sued for the UGX 10,000,000 difference; the trial court dismissed the suit, prompting this appeal.

Issues

  1. How much money the appellant deposited with the respondent on 10th December 2002.
  2. Whether the trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence on record.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment of the lower court dismissing High Court Civil Suit No. 830 of 2003 with costs set aside.
  • Judgment entered for the appellant against the respondent in the sum of UGX 10,000,000.
  • Interest awarded at the court rate from 10th December 2002 until payment in full.
  • No general damages awarded as none were submitted upon.
  • Costs of the appeal and in the court below awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Party Alleging Forgery Bears Burden of Proving It
Where a party alleges that a document is a forgery, the burden of proof shifts to that party, who must prove the forgery to a standard higher than a mere balance of probabilities.
Evidence — Failure to Call a Material Witness — Adverse Inference
Where a party fails to call a material witness who is readily available and best placed to resolve a key factual dispute, the court may draw an adverse inference that the omission was deliberate to deny the court the truth.
Evidence — Oral Evidence Must Be Direct — Hearsay
Under section 58 of the Evidence Act oral evidence must be direct; a witness who lacks personal foundation for asserting that a signature is forged gives evidence of no probative value on that issue.
Commercial Law — Receipts — Prima Facie Evidence of Payment
A receipt is prima facie evidence of payment, provided money was in fact given by one person and received by another; it may be the only proof a depositor holds and cannot be displaced by unsubstantiated allegations of forgery.
Civil Procedure — First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-appraise Evidence
A first appellate court has a duty to re-appraise the evidence adduced at trial and draw its own inferences, bearing in mind it did not observe the demeanour of witnesses.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Banco Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Hiraa Traders (U) Ltd v Lt Col Steven Mugerwa (Civil Suit No. 588 of 2005)
  • J.K Patel v Spear Motors Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1997)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Seruwagi v Jaffery Forex Bureau Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2009) [2018] UGCA 245 (1 January 2018)
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.