Wakilii

Tushabe v Co-operative Bank Limited (Civil Appeal No. 75 of 2005)

Court of Appeal · [2018] UGCA 265 · 2018 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal from High Court judgment in a civil suit for breach of banker's duty and damages
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; High Court award of Shs. 15,000,000/= general damages and interest at 18% per annum on Shs. 96,096,307/= upheld

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 of Appeal dismissed the appeal against a High Court award of Shs. 15,000,000/= general damages for a bank's breach of its fiduciary/banker's duty. The Court held general damages are within the trial Judge's discretion and found no basis to interfere, noting no ground of appeal actually challenged that award. On interest, the Court held that where a liquidated sum is ascertained and due before suit — here an overdraft debt fixed by consent judgment — interest runs from the date the money became due, at the agreed contractual rate of 18% per annum simple interest. The Court also rejected the general, unparticularised ground alleging failure to evaluate evidence.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; High Court award of Shs. 15,000,000/= general damages and interest at 18% per annum on Shs. 96,096,307/= upheld

Facts

The appellant, a Kasese coffee businessman, held account number 3895 with the respondent bank. In October 1998 he obtained a loan/overdraft of Shs. 600,000,000/= from the bank, secured by assets exceeding Shs. 1.4 billion. In November 1998 he discovered anomalies in the management of his loan account and sought explanation, which the bank did not satisfactorily provide. After his office was burgled and documents destroyed, the bank refused to supply copies of relevant account documents, and the liquidator failed to respond to his requests. The appellant sued for special damages of Shs. 573,863,487/=, general damages, interest and costs. The bank counterclaimed. At trial the parties consented that Shs. 96,096,307/= was due and owing to the bank as at 19 May 1999 (arising from a 1998 overdraft charged at 18% per annum calculated monthly), and consent judgment was entered on 28 June 2001. The trial Judge found the bank breached its banker's/fiduciary duty and awarded the appellant Shs. 15,000,000/= general damages, with interest to the bank at 18% per annum from 19 May 1999.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Judge erred in awarding the appellant Shs. 15,000,000/= as general damages instead of a higher sum.
  2. Whether the trial Judge erred in awarding interest at 18% per annum on Shs. 96,096,307/= in favour of the respondent from 19 May 1999.
  3. Whether the trial Judge failed in her duty to properly evaluate the evidence.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Discretion of Trial Court
General damages are awarded at the discretion of the trial Judge, and an appellate court will not interfere with that discretion unless a proper basis for doing so is shown; where the award compensates inconvenience arising from a breach of duty rather than proved actual loss, it remains within the trial court's discretion.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Grounds Not Raised in Memorandum of Appeal
Under Rule 102(a) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal an appellant is constrained from raising a matter not specifically set out in the memorandum of appeal; a ground introduced only at the scheduling conference is liable to be rejected unless both parties submit on it.
Banking & Finance — Interest — Date from which Interest on a Liquidated Debt Runs
Where a person is deprived of a liquidated sum ascertained and due before suit, interest runs from the date the money became due and owing; interest on a court-assessed sum runs only from the date of judgment, while interest accruing before filing must be pleaded and proved as special damages.
Banking & Finance — Overdraft — Applicable Contractual Interest Rate
Interest payable on an outstanding overdraft debt is governed by the rate agreed in the letter of approval; where that letter fixed 18% per annum calculated monthly, a court award of simple interest at 18% per annum from the date the debt became due is justified.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Grounds Alleging Failure to Evaluate Evidence
A ground of appeal merely asserting that the trial Judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence, without stating precisely how the evaluation failed or the resulting prejudice, offends Rule 86(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal for being too general.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.26
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.30(1)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.86(1)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.102(a)

Cases cited (10)

  • Kifamunte v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Bogere Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Fr. Narcensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs West End Distributors Ltd
  • Prem Lata vs Peter Musa Mbiyu (1965) KA 592
  • Toprani v. Patel (1) [1958] B.A. at p. 349
  • Eastern Radio Service v. ILJ, Patel (2)
  • Y. P. Gulamlusein -v- French Somaliland Shipping Co, Ltd (3)
  • Wallesleiner vs Moir (1975) 1 ALL ER 849
  • Obed Tashobya v DFCU Bank (Civil Suit No. 742 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tushabe v Co-operative Bank Limited (Civil Appeal No. 75 of 2005) [2018] UGCA 265 (2 August 2018)
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.