Wakilii

Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v CRT Group Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 956 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 254 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judgment on admission arising from Civil Suit No. 381 of 2024
Decision
Judgment on admission entered in favour of the applicant; 1st respondent ordered to pay outstanding loan amount, general damages, 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

Held that the 1st respondent's written statement of defence contained clear and unambiguous admissions of obtaining an invoice discounting loan facility of UGX 150,000,000 from the applicant and defaulting on repayment. The defence of frustration based on price fluctuations and aflatoxins in maize was rejected as these were foreseeable events that did not amount to frustrating factors. The 1st respondent failed to particularise or prove the alleged frustration. Judgment on admission was granted for UGX 162,393,824 (after deducting a proven payment of UGX 10,000,000), plus general damages of UGX 40,000,000 and interest at 6% per annum.

Outcome

Judgment on admission entered in favour of the applicant; 1st respondent ordered to pay outstanding loan amount, general damages, interest and costs

Facts

The applicant bank entered into an invoice discounting loan facility agreement with the 1st respondent on 5 July 2023 for UGX 150,000,000 for a term of three months. The facility was secured by a deed of assignment of contract proceeds from invoices issued by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent for supply of maize grain. The bank disbursed the funds on 18 July 2023. The 1st respondent defaulted on repayment. The bank instituted Civil Suit No. 381 of 2024 claiming UGX 172,393,824. In its written statement of defence, the 1st respondent admitted obtaining the loan and the key facts constituting the cause of action, but pleaded frustration of contract due to price fluctuations and aflatoxins in the maize. The 1st respondent made a payment of UGX 10,000,000 on 3 April 2024. The parties attempted to negotiate a settlement plan but the 1st respondent refused to execute the proposed consent judgment. The applicant then brought this application for judgment on admission.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant is entitled to judgment on admission?

Orders

  • Judgment on admission is entered in favour of the applicant.
  • The 1st respondent shall pay to the applicant the sum of UGX 162,393,824 as the outstanding amount on the Discount Invoicing Facility loan.
  • General damages of UGX 40,000,000 is awarded to the applicant.
  • Interest on the amount in (2) above at 6% per annum.
  • Costs of the application and the suit are awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Judgment on Admission — Requirements for Entry of Judgment
For a court to enter judgment on admission under Order 13 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the admission must be clear, unambiguous and must admit the claim of the plaintiff. The admission excludes admission by inference. A pleading must be construed or read as a whole to see its effect and one or two lines or a single paragraph cannot be taken out of context and used as an admission entitling the other party to judgment.
Contract Law — Frustration of Contract — Requirements and Burden of Proof
For the doctrine of frustration to be successfully pleaded, the frustrating event must arise without fault or election of either party, there must be such a change in the significance of the obligation that performance would be radically different from that contracted for, and the event must not be foreseeable. The party seeking to rely on frustration bears the burden of proving that the contract was frustrated and must particularise the frustration in the pleadings with sufficient detail to enable the other side to prepare and defend.
Contract Law — Frustration of Contract — Foreseeable Events
Price fluctuations and the existence of aflatoxins in agricultural commodities do not amount to frustrating factors because they are foreseeable events for which preventive measures exist. An event is foreseeable and will prevent frustration of the contract where it is one which any person of ordinary intelligence would regard as likely to occur.
Banking & Finance — Loan Facilities — Invoice Discounting — Judgment on Admission
Where a borrower admits in its written statement of defence to obtaining an invoice discounting loan facility, receiving the disbursed funds, and defaulting on repayment, but pleads frustration without particularising or proving the alleged frustrating events, the lender is entitled to judgment on admission for the outstanding amount.
Contract Law — Damages — Assessment of General Damages for Breach of Loan Agreement
In assessing general damages for breach of a loan facility agreement, 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 may have been put through. General damages are awarded with the object of compensating the plaintiff for loss, not to unjustly enrich the plaintiff or unjustly punish the defendant.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (34)

  • Central Electrical International Ltd v Eastern Builders & Engineers Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 176 of 2008)
  • Choitram v Nazari [1976-1985] EA 53
  • Juliet Kalema v William Kalema and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2003)
  • Brian Kaggwa v Peter Muramira (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2009)
  • Makerere University v Rajab Kagoro (Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2006)
  • Opia Moses v Chukia Lumago Roselyn and 5 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 22 of 2013)
  • Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC [1956] AC 696
  • J Lauritzen AS v Wijsmuller BV (The Super Servant Two) [1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1
  • Dormakaba Limited v Architectural Supplies Kenya Limited [2021] KEHC 210 (KLR)
  • Bank Line Ltd v Arthur Capel & Company [1919] AC 425
  • Lucy Njeri Njoroge v Kaiyahe Njoroge [2015] eKLR
  • Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology v Kwanza Estate Limited [2023] KECA 700 (KLR)
  • Toshike Construction Company Limited v Harambee Co-operative Savings and Credit Society Limited [2021] eKLR
  • Kenya Commercial Finance Co. Ltd v Kipng'eno Arap Ngeny and Another [2002] eKLR
  • Billey Oluoch Okun Orinda v Ayub Muthee M'igweta and 2 Others [2017] eKLR
  • Sari Consulting Limited v Francis Magambe Byaruhanga (Civil Suit No. 543 of 2020)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanyol (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2000)
  • Monday Eliab v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2010)
  • Lexington Properties Limited v Alliance Media Uganda Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 682 of 2021)
  • Stroms v Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • Hall Brothers SS Co. Ltd v Young [1939] 1 KB 748
  • Obongo and Another v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] EA 91
  • Ongom and Another v Attorney General [1979] HCB 267
  • Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
  • Nsaba Buturo v Munansi Newspaper [1982] HCB 134
  • Peter Musoke v Merger Technical Services Uganda Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 426 of 2022)
  • MTK (U) Limited v Attorney General and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 578 of 2022)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Sietco v Noble Builders U Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995)
  • Premchandra Shenoi and 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)
  • Harry Ssempa v Kamabagambire David (High Court Civil Suit No. 408 of 2014)
  • Lyamuleme David v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2013)
  • 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.

Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v CRT Group Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 956 of 2024) [2026] UGCommC 254 (25 May 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.