Standard Chartered Bank (U) Limited v Kemigisha (Civil Suit No. 369 of 2015)
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 plaintiff bank established a cause of action for breach of contract and recovery of the loan amount. The defendant's defense that the loan was covered by insurance failed because she voluntarily resigned from employment, which excluded her from the retrenchment/redundancy cover under the insurance policy. The plaintiff was entitled to recover the outstanding loan balance with interest at 8% from the date of filing suit.
Outcome
Judgment entered for the plaintiff bank with recovery of outstanding loan amount, interest at reduced rate of 8% per annum, and partial costs
Facts
In April 2012, the defendant applied for and obtained a loan of UGX 90,000,000 from the plaintiff bank, repayable over 58 months at 25% interest per annum. The loan was insured against death, disability, and retrenchment. The defendant was employed by UMEME Limited when she obtained the loan but voluntarily resigned in March 2013 and joined Globalteq Uganda Limited as Deputy CEO. She continued servicing the loan until June 2014 when she defaulted after Globalteq was liquidated and she became redundant. The plaintiff recalled the loan in October 2014. At the time of filing suit, the outstanding balance was UGX 70,112,698, later reduced to UGX 68,600,906 after partial payment. The defendant argued the loan should be covered by the insurance policy due to her redundancy, while the plaintiff contended the insurance did not cover voluntary resignation.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff's suit discloses a cause of action against the defendant
- Whether the defendant's defense of her loan being recovered and payable under the insurance policy is sustainable
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought
Orders
- Defendant ordered to pay UGX 68,600,906 being the outstanding loan amount to the plaintiff.
- Interest awarded at 8% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
- Defendant to pay 10% of the taxed costs to the plaintiff.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Contracts Act s.6(1)
- Contracts Act s.62(1)
- Civil Procedure Act s.26(2)
- Civil Procedure Act s.27
- Financial Institutions (Credit Classification and Provisioning) Regulations S.I No. 43 of 2005 Regulation 9(1)
Cases cited (9)
- Nelima & 2 Others v Bank of Baroda (Uganda) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 55 of 2015)
- Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 514
- Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Cellular Galore Ltd & 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 50 of 2010)
- Barton v County Natwest Ltd [1999] Lloyd's Rep Bank 408 (CA)
- Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Another v Igeme Nathan Nabeta (High Court Civil Suit No. 228 of 2012)
- Barclays Bank of Uganda v Bakojja (High Court Civil Suit No. 53 of 2011)
- Altica Sea Carriers Corporation v Ferrostoal Poseidon Bank Reederei GMBH [1976] 1 Lloyd's Rep 250
- K and V Limited v The Registered Trustees of Arya Practinidihi Sabha Eastern Africa (High Court Civil Suit No. 299 of 2011)
- Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.