Stanbic Bank (U) Limited v Kenneth Mambo TA Remedy Business Ventures and Bakaima Investments Limited [2025] UGHC 331
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 2nd defendant was a necessary party to the suit as the plaintiff sought orders requiring the 2nd defendant to hand over land titles held in custody. The consent judgment between the plaintiff and 1st defendant wholly disposed of the case. The 2nd defendant was entitled to costs, but these costs were to be paid by the 1st defendant rather than the plaintiff, as the 1st defendant's failure to honour the Acknowledgement of Debt Settlement Agreement and his instruction to the 2nd defendant not to release titles caused the litigation.
Outcome
Consent judgment recorded between plaintiff and 1st defendant; 2nd defendant awarded costs against 1st defendant
Facts
The plaintiff bank entered into a banking agency agreement with the 1st defendant to deliver financial services. The 1st defendant credited customer accounts but failed to properly debit his own account, resulting in a debt of UGX 2,938,523,563. A reconciliation revealed the 1st defendant had used these funds to purchase properties from the 2nd defendant's real estate business. The parties entered into an Acknowledgement of Debt Settlement Agreement on 15 September 2021, agreeing that properties purchased would be sold to settle the debt. The 1st defendant handed over some titles which were sold, but others remained in the 2nd defendant's custody. On 23 May 2022, the 1st defendant instructed the 2nd defendant not to release any titles without his authorization. The plaintiff sued both defendants when the 2nd defendant refused to release the remaining titles. The plaintiff and 1st defendant subsequently entered into a consent judgment on 6 May 2025.
Issues
- Whether the 2nd defendant is entitled to costs
Orders
- The consent judgment entered into between the plaintiff and 1st defendant on 6 May 2025 is recorded, wherein the 2nd defendant hands over the 1st defendant's certificates of title to the plaintiff for disposal as full and final settlement of the 1st defendant's debt obligations.
- Each party between the plaintiff and 1st defendant to bear its own costs.
- The 2nd defendant is entitled to costs.
- The costs borne by the 2nd defendant shall be paid by the 1st defendant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (5)
- Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998)
- Dison Okumu and 7 Others v Uganda Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd and 6 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2020)
- Sujata Gandhi vs SB Gandhi Appeal No.1079 of 2019
- Wilkinson v Wilkinson [1958] 2 All E.R 79 at page 192
- Kiska Limited v Vittorio Angels [1968] EACA
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.