Wakilii

Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Kitasha Coffee Buyers & Farmers Ltd and Others (Civil Suit No. 178 of 2014)

High Court · [2016] UGCOMMC 292 · 2016 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for formal proof of interest following default judgment on liquidated claim
Decision
Interest on judgment debt awarded as claimed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 granted interest on a judgment debt of USD 477,781.64 at the agreed contractual rate of 1% per annum over the plaintiff's USD Prime Lending Rate from the date of default (30 January 2014) until payment in full. The court held that the interest rate agreed in the loan agreement was not harsh and unconscionable, and that the plaintiff had proven entitlement to the claimed interest pursuant to section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Outcome

Interest on judgment debt awarded as claimed

Facts

The plaintiff bank advanced an Agricultural/Commodity Loan Facility to the 1st defendant, secured by personal guarantees from the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The outstanding balance as at 30 January 2014 was USD 477,781.64. On 28 October 2014, the plaintiff obtained default judgment against the defendants for the principal sum pursuant to Order 9 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The claim for interest was set down for formal proof. The loan agreement dated 2 November 2011 provided for interest at the bank's USD Prime Lending Rate plus 1% per annum. At the time of granting the loan, the USD PLR was 10% per annum. At the time of hearing, the current USD PLR was 11.75% per annum.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the judgment debt at the agreed contractual rate.
  2. Whether the interest rate of USD PLR plus 1% per annum was harsh and unconscionable.

Orders

  • Interest on the judgment debt of USD 477,781.64 granted from 30th January 2014 until payment in full at a rate of 1% per annum over and above the plaintiff's USD PLR prevailing.

Rules and key headnotes

Banking & Finance — Interest on Loans — Contractual Interest Rates — Discretion of Court
The power to award interest in civil matters is discretionary whether or not the interest claimed is agreed upon under an agreement by the parties, but unless the court is of the opinion that the interest claimed and sought to be enforced pursuant to an agreement is harsh and unconscionable, the claimed interest should be awarded to the claimant.
Contract Law — Loan Agreements — Enforcement of Agreed Interest Terms
Where parties agree on an interest rate in a loan agreement and there is no evidence to suggest that the rate is harsh and unconscionable, the court will enforce the agreed terms and award interest at the contractual rate.
Banking & Finance — Interest Rates — Variable Rates — Prime Lending Rate
Where a loan agreement provides for interest at a variable rate linked to the bank's Prime Lending Rate plus a specified margin, the court will award interest calculated according to that formula, applying the prevailing Prime Lending Rate at the time of judgment.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (6)

  • Attorney General v Sam Semanda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2006)
  • Alice Okiror V Another Vs. Global Capital Save 2004 Ltd & Anor No. 149 of 2010
  • National Medical Stores v Penjuines Ltd (High Court Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2012)
  • Harbutts Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank & Pump Co Ltd [1970] 1 Ch 447
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (No 2) [1970] EA 469
  • Zimbiha v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 109 of 2011)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Kitasha Coffee Buyers & Farmers Ltd and Others (Civil Suit No. 178 of 2014) [2016] UGCommC 292 (27 October 2016)
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.