Wakilii

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

Court of Appeal · [2018] UGCA 267 · 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 fiduciary duty
Decision
Appeal dismissed; trial Judge's award of general damages and interest 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. It held that general damages for breach of a banker's fiduciary duty are awarded at the trial judge's discretion, and found no basis to interfere with the Shs. 15,000,000 award, especially as no ground of appeal challenged it. On interest, the Court held that where a liquidated sum is ascertainable and due before suit, interest runs from the date it became due and owing, not the date of filing or judgment; the Shs. 96,096,307 overdraft carried the agreed 18% simple interest from 19 May 1999. The ground alleging failure to evaluate evidence was too general and offended Rule 86(1); on re-evaluation the Court reached the same conclusion.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; trial Judge's award of general damages and interest upheld

Facts

The appellant, a coffee businessman in Kasese, held account number 3895 with the respondent Bank and obtained a loan of Shs. 600,000,000 in October 1998. In November 1998 he discovered anomalies in how the Bank managed his loan account and sought an explanation, which was not forthcoming. He sued the Bank in 2000 seeking special damages of Shs. 573,863,487, general damages for breach of duty, interest and costs for wrongful entries on his account. The Bank denied wrongdoing and counterclaimed for Shs. 801,299,636. The trial Judge found the Bank breached its fiduciary duty by refusing to supply relevant account documents and awarded the appellant Shs. 15,000,000 general damages. The Court also upheld a consent counterclaim of Shs. 96,096,307, with interest at 18% per annum from 19 May 1999 (the date the overdraft sum became due) until payment. This sum arose from an overdraft granted in 1998 at 18% per annum interest calculated monthly. Both parties agreed the account was overdrawn by that amount as at 19 May 1999.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Judge erred in awarding the appellant Shs. 15,000,000 as general damages rather than 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 with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Discretion of Trial Judge
General damages are awarded at the discretion of the trial judge, and an appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion absent a proper basis for doing so.
Civil Procedure — Memorandum of Appeal — Matters Not Pleaded
An appellant is constrained by Rule 102(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules from raising a matter which is not specifically set out in the memorandum of appeal.
Banking & Finance — Interest — Accrual on Liquidated and Ascertainable Sums
Where a person is deprived of a liquidated amount that is ascertainable and due before the filing of suit, interest runs from the date the sum became due and owing, and not merely from the date of filing suit or the date of judgment.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Distinction Between General and Special Damages
Interest on special damages is awarded from the date of filing the suit until payment in full, while interest on general damages, being unascertained until assessed by the court, runs from the date of judgment until payment in full.
Civil Procedure — Grounds of Appeal — Failure to Evaluate Evidence
A ground of appeal alleging that the trial judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence is too general and offends Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules where it does not state precisely how the evaluation failed and what prejudice resulted.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.26
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.30(7)
  • 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. 7 of 1997)
  • Fr. Narcensio Begumisa & 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) EA 592
  • Wallesteiner vs Moir (1975) 1. ALL ER 849
  • Obed Tashobya v DFCU Bank (Civil Suit No. 742 of 2004)
  • Toprani v. Patel [1958] EA at p. 349
  • Eastern Radio Service v. R. J. Patel
  • Y. F. Gulamhusein -v- French Somaliland Shipping Co, Ltd

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tushabe v Co-operative Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 75 of 2005) [2018] UGCA 267 (2 February 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.