Wakilii

Uganda Commercial Bank v Sanyu and Another (Civil Appeal 46 of 1998)

Court of Appeal · [1999] UGCA 54 · 1999 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court judgment awarding general and special damages for breach of contract
Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court award of general damages and interest upheld

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 of Appeal dismissed the bank's appeal against an award of Shs 15,000,000 general damages and 24% interest to customers whose account was mishandled. Although the trial judge wrongly reasoned that damages could compensate for lost profit on wrongly withheld money, the respondents were nonetheless entitled to general damages for injury to their business credit and reputation caused by wrongfully dishonoured cheques, without proof of actual damage. The award was neither too high nor excessive. On interest, the trial judge properly exercised his wide discretion under section 26(2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Act, relying on precedent and the commercial nature of the account. Appeal dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court award of general damages and interest upheld

Facts

The respondents operated a current account at the appellant bank's Kilembe branch between 1990 and 17 May 1994. After the branch manager died, the respondents obtained bank statements and discovered their account had been improperly handled, disclosing a substantial loss. Successive statements were issued, the final one showing a loss of Shs 149,129,000. The respondents sued the bank for special and general damages for breach of contract, loss of credit, reputation and inconvenience, plus interest. The High Court awarded Shs 15,000,000 general damages, Shs 140,129,000 special damages, and 24% interest per annum. The bank appealed only against the general damages award and the interest rate. The bank alleged the loss was inflated by irregularities and that a special relationship existed between the deceased manager and the first respondent, but no evidence was brought to prove collusion.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erroneously arrived at the quantum of general damages awarded for breach of contract.
  2. Whether the trial judge erroneously awarded interest at 24% per annum on the decretal amount and general damages.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal and in the court below awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Damages — General Damages — Recovery of Property in Contract or Tort — No Award for Lost Profits
Where a plaintiff recovers property in tort or contract, he is not entitled to general damages for the loss of profits he would have obtained from that property, as this would place him in a better position than before the breach.
Banking — Wrongful Dishonour of Cheque — Presumption of Injury to Credit of Trading Customer
Where the cheque of a trading customer is wrongfully dishonoured, there is a presumption of injury to the customer's credit and reputation, entitling the customer to general damages without proof of actual damage.
Damages — Appellate Interference — Standard for Reviewing an Award
An appellate court may only interfere with an award of damages where it is satisfied that the trial judge acted on a wrong principle of law or misapprehended the evidence, resulting in an inordinately high or low figure amounting to an entirely erroneous estimate.
Civil Procedure — Award of Interest — Judicial Discretion under Civil Procedure Act s.26
Section 26(2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Act confers wide discretion on the trial court to award interest at a reasonable rate, and an appellate court will not interfere unless the judge misdirected himself and thereby arrived at a wrong decision, or was clearly wrong resulting in injustice.
Civil Procedure — Interest on Damages — Basis in Restitutio in Integrum
Interest on damages is not awarded as a punitive measure for keeping the plaintiff out of his money, but as part of the attempt to achieve restitutio in integrum, based on the cost to a plaintiff of general attributes borrowing money to replace that which was withheld.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (13)

  • Kimani V Attorney General 1969 E.A. 507
  • Ecta (U) Ltd v Geraldine Namubiru (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1994)
  • Matiya Byabalema & others v Uganda Transport Co. (1975) Ltd.
  • Sarah Kanabo v The Editor-in-Chief Ngabo News Papers & 3 others (Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1993)
  • Motor Marts (U) Ltd v Lugazi General Contractors (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1997)
  • Flint v Lovell (1937) KB 360
  • Associated Architects v Nazziwa (1985) H.C.B. 25
  • Investrust Merchant Federki (SPA) (U) Ltd. v. Haji Abdu Karim Lugaya, Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1993 (SC) (unreported)
  • Mboga and Another v Shah 1968 EA at p. 96G
  • Katuramu & Company v A. Baumann (Uganda) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1991)
  • Tate & Lyle Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council and Another (1981) 3 All E.R. 716
  • London Chatham and Dover Rail Co. v South Eastern Railway Co. (1893) AC 429 at 477
  • Eserta Properties Ltd v Attorney General (HCCS No. 499 of 1984)

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.

Uganda Commercial Bank v Sanyu and Another (Civil Appeal 46 of 1998) [1999] UGCA 54 (16 September 1999)
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.