Wakilii

Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Bryan Kavuma (Civil Suit No. 192 of 2015)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 267 · 2017 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of outstanding loan balance, heard ex parte after defendant's non-appearance
Decision
Defendant ordered to pay outstanding loan balance with interest at court rate

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 defendant obtained unsecured loans totalling UGX 116,000,000 and defaulted on repayment obligations after October 2014. The defendant is liable to repay the outstanding balance of UGX 118,410,338 inclusive of default interest. Interest on the outstanding balance awarded at court rate of 6% from judgment date rather than the contractual rate of 20%, which the court found too high in the circumstances.

Outcome

Defendant ordered to pay outstanding loan balance with interest at court rate

Facts

The defendant applied for and was granted two unsecured loans from the plaintiff bank totalling UGX 116,000,000 in September 2013 and February 2014 while employed at Megamind Warehouse Limited. The loans were to be repaid in monthly instalments of UGX 2,119,511 over 60 months beginning September 2013. The defendant initially serviced the loan but defaulted on repayment obligations, with his last payment made in October 2014. Despite reminders and acknowledgment of the debt, including a commitment to a repayment plan in March 2015, the defendant failed to make further payments. By February 2017, the outstanding balance including default interest had grown to UGX 118,410,338. The defendant did not appear at the hearing despite proper service.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant obtained an unsecured loan facility of UGX 116,000,000
  2. Whether the defendant is liable to repay the sum of UGX 111,716,051, being the amount outstanding on the loan

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff.
  • Defendant liable to pay outstanding loan balance of UGX 118,410,338.
  • Interest awarded at 6% per annum from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Loan Recovery — Unsecured Loans — Proof of Debt
Where a defendant admits in their written statement of defence that they obtained a loan and loan documentation evidences disbursement, the bank establishes the existence of the loan facility and the defendant's liability to repay.
Breach of Contract — Loan Agreements — Failure to Pay Instalments
Under a loan agreement where prompt payment of instalments is of the essence, any failure to pay an instalment promptly is a breach of contract going to the heart of the contract, entitling the bank to claim the outstanding balance and remedies for breach.
Remedies for Breach — Compensation — Contracts Act 2010 s.61(1) and s.62(1)
A party who suffers breach of contract is entitled to compensation for the loss, and where a contract is breached and a sum is named as payable in case of breach, the innocent party is entitled to receive reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount named, whether or not actual damage or loss is proved.
Interest on Loans — Contractual Interest Rate — Judicial Discretion under Civil Procedure Act s.26(2)
Where a contractual interest rate is sought to be enforced and the court is of the opinion that the rate is harsh and unconscionable, the court may give judgment for payment of interest at such rate as it thinks fit. A contractual default interest rate of 20% may be reduced to the court rate of 6% where the court finds the agreed rate too high in the circumstances.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Barclays Bank v Bakojja (Civil Suit No. 53 of 2011)
  • Lombard North Central PLC v Butterworth [1987] KB 527
  • Altica Sea Carriers Corporation v Ferrostoal Poseidon Bank Reederei GMBH [1976] 1 Lloyds Rep. 250

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Bryan Kavuma (Civil Suit No. 192 of 2015) [2017] UGCommC 267 (5 May 2017)
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.