Wakilii

Slack Harriet Stella v Nasser Nduhukire (Civil Suit No. 867 of 2018)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 242 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money and fraud
Decision
Judgment for plaintiff with recovery of USD 300,000 (USD 250,000 principal plus USD 50,000 general damages) with interest and costs; defendant's counterclaim dismissed with 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

Held that the plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that she advanced USD 300,000 to the defendant who fraudulently obtained the money under a false gold sale scheme. The settlement agreement of 22 September 2018 was found to be voidable, having been procured through fraudulent misrepresentation that the defendant would pay the outstanding USD 250,000 notwithstanding the agreement's terms. The defendant was not entitled to a refund of the USD 50,000 paid as part payment. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff for USD 250,000 with 8% interest per annum from the date of suit, plus USD 50,000 general damages and costs.

Outcome

Judgment for plaintiff with recovery of USD 300,000 (USD 250,000 principal plus USD 50,000 general damages) with interest and costs; defendant's counterclaim dismissed with costs

Facts

In August 2017, the defendant approached the plaintiff with a proposal to facilitate the sale of gold to buyers in Oman. The plaintiff and her husband borrowed USD 300,000, pledging their house as security to a lender at 10% monthly interest. The plaintiff handed the money to the defendant who issued a receipt in the name of Genorex International Limited, a company later found to be non-existent. The defendant and plaintiff travelled to Dubai but no gold transaction materialized. The defendant subsequently provided a forged wire transfer confirmation purporting to show payment of EUR 2,500,000 to the plaintiff's account. When the plaintiff realized she had been defrauded, she reported the defendant to police. While in police custody, the defendant and plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement on 22 September 2018 under which the defendant paid USD 50,000 in purported full and final settlement. However, video evidence showed the defendant represented at the time of signing that he would pay the full amount owed notwithstanding the agreement's terms. The plaintiff brought suit to recover the outstanding USD 250,000. The defendant denied receiving any money and counterclaimed for refund of the USD 50,000.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff advanced to the Defendant the sum of USD 300,000?
  2. Whether the parties' agreement of 22nd September 2018 is valid and enforceable?
  3. Whether the Defendant is entitled to a refund of USD 50,000?
  4. What remedies are available to the Parties?

Orders

  • Declaration that the Defendant fraudulently obtained the sum of USD 300,000 under the auspices of financing a gold transaction which the Defendant knew to be false and/or non-existent.
  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant for the sum of USD 250,000 with interest at rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of this suit until payment in full.
  • Plaintiff awarded General Damages of USD 50,000.
  • Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit.
  • Defendant's counterclaim dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Burden of Proof — Money Had and Received
For a successful claim of money had and received, the plaintiff must prove ownership of the money and possession by the defendant. The required elements are: (a) the defendant received money intended for the plaintiff's benefit, (b) the money was not used for the plaintiff's benefit, and (c) the defendant has not returned the money. The claim seeks to prevent unjust enrichment and looks only to the justice of the case to determine to which party the money rightfully belongs.
Video Evidence — Authentication and Admissibility
Video recording is regarded as a document in law and there is no difference in principle between a video recording and a photograph. A proper foundation for video evidence requires showing: (1) the device was capable of recording, (2) the operator was competent, (3) the authenticity and correctness of the recording is established, (4) no changes or deletions were made, (5) the manner of preservation is shown, (6) speakers are identified, and (7) testimony was freely given. Where contents are transcribed by a reputable institution, such transcription may be relied upon by the court.
Fraud — Fraudulent Inducement to Contract
Under section 15 of the Contracts Act, consent is induced by fraud where a party makes a false representation, conceals material facts, makes a promise without intending to perform it, or commits any act intended to deceive. Fraud must be proved to a standard higher than balance of probabilities but not beyond reasonable doubt, and must be attributable to the defendant. A contract procured through fraudulent inducement is voidable at the option of the defrauded party.
Misrepresentation — Material Misrepresentation
A misrepresentation must be material to entitle the affected party to elect against contract performance. A material representation is a convincing statement made to induce a person to enter a contract which they would not have entered without such persuasion. It is a representation to which a reasonable person would attach importance in deciding their course of action. A misrepresentation is material if the transaction would not have been consummated had it not been made. Under section 16(2) of the Contracts Act, consent obtained by misrepresentation renders the resultant contract voidable.
Parol Evidence Rule — Exceptions for Fraud and Collateral Agreement
Once contract terms are reduced to writing, extrinsic evidence to contradict, vary or add to the express terms is generally inadmissible. However, exceptions include proving fraud, misrepresentation, establishing a collateral contract, or showing that the written document does not reflect the true agreement. Where the whole agreement is not reflective of the parties' agreed position or where there exists a collateral agreement, parol evidence is admissible to establish the true position.
Subjective Intent — Binding Effect of Contract
The subjective intentions for entering a contract are immaterial once contractual requirements are met, unless it is shown that the other party was put on notice regarding those motivations and it was understood that those motivations impeached creation of the contract which would otherwise have been made. The law takes an objective rather than subjective view of the existence of agreement and judges parties by what they said, wrote or did, not by what is in their minds.
General Damages — Assessment Principles
The most important rule regarding general damages is that the court must award damages to compensate the plaintiff for actual loss. Damages should not serve any other function, and neither should the plaintiff be unjustly enriched nor the defendant unjustly punished. In assessing general damages, the court should be guided by the value of the subject matter, the nature and extent of the breach, and the economic and other inconveniences the injured party has suffered.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (52)

  • Scorpion Holdings Ltd v Lion Assurance Co Ltd (Civil Suit No. 221 of 2013)
  • Stockloser v Johnson [1954] 1 ALLER 640
  • NSSF v Alcon International Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009)
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Pinnel [1605] 5 Co. Rep 117
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 ALL ER 372, 373
  • Don Acknah v Pergah Transport [2011] 31 GMJ 174 SC
  • Gloria Kubajo and Another v Francis Drate (High Court Civil Suit No. 889 of 2020)
  • Dr James Kashugyera Tumwine and Another v Sr Willie Magara & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 576 of 2004)
  • Eric Kennedy Okumu Ogola v Nation Media Group and Another (Civil Suit No. 96 of 2019)
  • Olega v Alidriga (Civil Appeal No. 006 of 2013)
  • Steve M. Solomon, Jr., Inc. v. Edgar, 88 S.E.2d 167 (Ga. Ct. App. USA 195
  • Hajji Suliman Lule v Samu Nalumansi Nalongo and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 558 of 1989)
  • Golf View Inn (U) Ltd v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 358 of 2009)
  • L'strange v Grancoub Ltd [1943] KB 394
  • Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (Civil Suit No. 0580 of 2003)
  • South East Water Ltd v Elster Water Metering Ltd [2025] EWCA CIV 287
  • Soft Sheen Carson v William Fugar [2014] 79 GMJ 162
  • David May v Busitema Mining CIE Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2010)
  • Nabukenya v Bwogi Abdul (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2017)
  • Betuco (U) Ltd Vs Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd & 3 Others, 2018 UGSC 39
  • David Ssejjaka v Rebecca Musoke (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1985)
  • Christine Kayima v Mercentile Credit Bank & Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 85 of 2021)
  • Deery v. Peek, (1889) 14 App. Cas. 337
  • Standard Chartered Bank v. Pakistan National Shipping Corporation [1998] 1 Lloyds Rep 684
  • Lucy v. Zehmer, 196 Va. 493; 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954)
  • Rose & Frank Co. v J.R Cromption & Bros (1925) AC 445
  • Jones v Vernons' Pools Ltd, (1938) 2 All ER 626
  • Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community (2002) 209 CLR 95
  • Banque Brussels Lambert v Australian National Industries NSWSC 1989
  • L'Estrange v Gracoub Ltd (1934) 2 KB 394
  • Parker v South Eastern Railway Co. CPD 416
  • Immaculate Senoga v Mbabazi Evaristo & Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 2316 of 2023)
  • Jacob v. Batavia and General Plantations Trust, (1924) 1 Ch. 287
  • Muthuuri v. National Industrial Credit Bank Ltd [2003] KLR 145
  • Robin v. Gervon Berger Association Limited and Others [1986] WLR 526 at 530
  • DSS Motors Limited v Afri Tours and Travels Limited and Amin Tejani (High Court Civil Suit No. 12 of 2003)
  • Sietco v Noble Builders U Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995)
  • Kengrow Industries Ltd v CC Chandran (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2001)
  • Premchandra Shenoi & Another v Maximov Oleg Petrovich (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003)
  • Ahmed Ibrahim Bholm v Car & General Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2003)
  • Stroms V. Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • Hall Brothers SS Co. Ltd V. Young [1939] 1 KB748, at 756 (CA)
  • Obongo & Another v. Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] EA 91
  • Ongom & Another v. Attorney- General [1979] HCB 267
  • Kyambadde v. Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
  • Peter Musoke v Merger Technical Services Uganda Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 426 of 2022)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Harry Ssempa v Kambagambire David (High Court Civil Suit No. 408 of 2014)
  • Iyamuleme David v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2013)
  • Candiru Alice v Amandua Festo & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 19 of 2014)
  • Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v. Paphos Wine Industries Ltd, [1951] 1 All ER 873

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Slack Harriet Stella v Nasser Nduhukire (Civil Suit No. 867 of 2018) [2025] UGCommC 242 (25 July 2025)
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.