Topline Investments Limited v Namuli and Another (Civil Suit 966 of 2023)
Observed later treatment
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 1st Defendant defaulted on a loan agreement and two subsequent memoranda of understanding to repay UGX 89,040,000. The 2nd Defendant's liability as guarantor crystallised upon default by the principal debtor under Contracts Act s.71. The court found the agreed interest rate of 10% per month (120% per annum) to be harsh and unconscionable, excessive compared to commercial rates of 18-25% per annum. Judgment was entered for the Plaintiff at 25% per annum interest until full payment.
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff; Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay UGX 89,040,000 with interest at 25% per annum until full payment
Facts
The Plaintiff extended a loan facility of UGX 120,000,000 to the 1st Defendant at 10% interest per month, repayable in one month. The 2nd Defendant guaranteed the loan and granted the 1st Defendant powers of attorney to mortgage his land as security. The 1st Defendant made partial payment of UGX 25,500,000, leaving a balance of UGX 89,040,000. On 29 March 2018, the 1st Defendant signed a memorandum of understanding to pay the balance within two months but failed to honour it. On 20 August 2018, the parties entered another memorandum under which the 1st Defendant undertook to transfer two acres of land valued at UGX 40,000,000 each in full settlement, but she failed to provide the necessary documents. The Plaintiff instituted a summary suit to recover UGX 89,040,000 plus interest. The Defendants were granted leave to defend but did not appear at the hearing. The matter proceeded ex parte under Order 9 Rule 20(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Issues
- Whether the Defendants defaulted on their undertakings under the Loan Agreement and the Memoranda of Understanding and whether the 2nd Defendant is liable.
- Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought.
Orders
- Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and severally.
- Payment of UGX 89,040,000.
- Interest on the principal sum at 25% per annum until payment in full.
- Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
Cases cited (11)
- Motor Garage and others Vs. Motorkov East Africa Law Reports 1971 E.A pg. 514
- Kapeka Coffee Works Ltd v NPART (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
- Praful Chandra R Patel v Abbas Manafwa (HCT-04-CV-CA-0013 of 2015)
- Uganda Finance Trust Ltd v Alloys Muhumuza and Another (HCT-01-CV-CA-03 of 2015)
- Uttam Chand Kothari vs Gauri Shankar Jalan and Ors. AIR 2007 Gau 20, 2007 III GLT 37
- VAMBECO v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 0265 of 2014)
- Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2000)
- Alice Okiror v Global Capital Save 2004 Ltd (Civil Suit No. 149 of 2010)
- Alpha International Investments Ltd v Nathan Kizito (High Court Civil Suit No. 131 of 2001)
- Samuel V. Newbold (1906) A.C. 461
- Avathani Muthukrishnier vs Sankaralingam Pillai, (1913) 24 MW 135
Cases citing this judgment (1)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.