Lawpoint Uganda

The Court examined whether the bank breached its fiduciary obligations when it acted on the order. In doing so, it adopted both English and Ugandan jurisprudence on freezing and garnishee orders, particularly the landmark decision in Customs & Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank Plc, later followed by the Supreme Court of Uganda in Arim v Stanbic.“A bank’s relationship with its customers is subject to the law of the land… It seems to me in the final analysis unjust and unrea

The Court cited the statutory position that: “Where the enforcement of a security interest is commenced by a secured creditor other than the secured creditor whose right has priority over that of the enforcing creditor, the secured creditor shall be entitled to take over the enforcement at any time before the sale of the collateral.” The Court further observed that lodging a caveat promptly—as was done on 18th August 2022—solidifies a creditor’s priority under the Security I

"The catch phrase under Section 290h-4 (a) (1) & (2) of the USADF ACT /ADF ACT U.S Code Title 22, Chapter 71, is that the African Development Foundation, as a body corporate, can sue or be sued in any court of competent jurisdiction. My understanding of this provision is that, the use of the words 'any court of competent jurisdiction' in the enactment provision which establishes the African Development Foundation is a symbolisation of an expression of lack of restriction in f

The Court rejected the defenses of non est factum and procedural unconscionability but intervened on substantive unconscionability grounds to reduce excessive interest rates. It underscored the heavy evidentiary burden on borrowers alleging forgery or illiteracy-based defenses, reaffirmed that repealed laws continue to apply to vested contractual rights, and confirmed the Court’s equitable jurisdiction to reopen harsh or oppressive loan terms.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction, starting from the principle that the High Court's jurisdiction is unlimited unless constitutionally limited (Article 139(1); Koboko District Local Government v Okujjo Swali HCMA No. 1 of 2016: "jurisdiction is the first test in the legal authority of a Court, and its absence disqualifies the Court from exercising any of its powers"). Exclusive clauses are generally enforceable (Uganda Telecom v Rodrigo Chacon t/a Andes Alps Trading HCMA No

Facts Adler Construction Company Ltd (the Applicant) applied under Section 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Cap. 4 and...

Contracts can be implied or modified by parties' actions, even if not strictly following written terms. Here, the Defendant's continued engagement (e.g., demand letters, referrals to sales staff) waived strict deposit requirements, creating enforceable obligations. Demands for payment must align with agreed terms (e.g., phased vs. lump sum). Sellers must provide reasonable notice of construction progress and deadlines, especially in delayed projects, to avoid breach claims.

The court established that the Investment and Share Agreement of September 25, 2019, ratified the earlier agreement, as evidenced by the consistent 71% shareholding allocation and the parties’ conduct. Applying the objective test of contractual interpretation, the court clarified that a reasonable person, with knowledge of the parties’ prior dealings, would interpret the agreement as formalizing prior contributions.

The court clarified that, while Regulations 40(1) and (3) of the Financial Institutions (Credit Reference Bureau) Regulations, 2022, impose on CRBs the duty to investigate complaints within seven working days and require financial institutions to notify CRBs immediately upon receiving such grievances, banks nonetheless retain a critical obligation to submit updated settlement data to the CRB within 30 days of discharge, as affirmed in the testimony of DW1 (the defendant's wit

The Court observed: “Acts or omissions by the employer that hinder the contractor’s ability to meet a contractual deadline…is referred to as an employer’s ‘prevention.’ This principle prevents the employer from benefiting from their own prevention that causes delays or disruptions by insisting on the original completion date or claiming liquidated damages for delays caused by the employer’s actions.”

As the Court warned: “It is likely that a party who markets and sells products under a trademark owned by another party may destroy and/or hide those products if it is alerted of the legal consequences of its conduct.”

The Court of Appeal clarified that lending money to Ugandan entities without a physical address or ongoing business does not amount to carrying on business requiring registration. The trial judge erred in treating the appellant as a “nonentity.” Allowing respondents to sue the appellant in earlier proceedings, but then objecting to its capacity when it counter-sued, amounted to approbating and reprobating—contrary to Article 21(1) of the Constitution (equal protection before

Court observed that an individual who intends to transact at the personal level should not hide under the image of a company and deny a party the right to or right to a claim. Court further observed that the powers of court on revision are very limited.Citing the cases of Joseph Ntibaza V Majambere Ronald Misc.Application No.005 of 2024 and Kehooda Immaculate and Rwabuhe Johnson V Lyamujungu co-operative financial services,Revision Application No.002 of 2025...Court stated th

The court emphaised that constructive notice arises only upon proper registration. A registered caveat or instrument gives constructive notice to the world, whether or not a purchaser has actual knowledge. This principle is central in determining the duty of disclosure: if a claim is not yet registered, it may not constitute an encumbrance binding on the seller

The Court found that, under Section 46(1) Contracts Act, where time is of the essence and a party fails to perform, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the promisee. Equity will not order specific performance where the claimant is the party in breach (see Nipuni Bhatia v Boutique Shazim Ltd [2015]).

The Court clarified that while banks must reverse erroneous credits within a reasonable time, even long delays do not oblige payment if no funds ever existed.

The Court distinguished the decisions in Woodmore Energy Consultancy Ltd & 3 Ors v Guaranty Trust Bank (U) Ltd and Haruna Sentongo v I&M Bank (U) Ltd, clarifying that these cases concern interim stay of execution applications in appellate courts. These rulings are isolated and contextual and do not alter the established jurisprudence on the application of Regulation 13 to injunctions granted by trial courts. The appellate court must apply a different approach when dealing wit

The Court emphasised that once a contract is valid, it creates reciprocal rights and obligations between the parties to it. I think it is the law that when a document containing contractual terms is signed, then in absence of fraud or misrepresentation the party signing it is bound by its terms. — quoting William Kasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd, HCCS No. 1326 of 2000.

The Court affirmed that “A mortgage under Section 116 of the Registration of Titles Act is void ab initio where the mortgagor did not have registered title at the time of execution.”

The Court referenced a 2020 Bank of Uganda statement, confirming that foreign lenders not accepting deposits from the Ugandan public are not regulated under the FIA. These foreign lenders operate under the laws of their home countries and international contractual principles—not the Ugandan FIA. Therefore, the Court held that there is no law in Uganda forbidding persons from borrowing from entities or institutions outside Uganda, and that such a restriction would be unreasona

The High Court affirmed that Once shareholders of a company pass away, it is reasonable for the court to allow the surviving member and/or officer to conduct the affairs of the company as they deem fit to further the company’s objectives

Lending institutions must ensure that a company resolution is in place before accepting company property as loan security. In its absence, such transactions risk being invalidated for lack of proper authorization under company law. Moreover, The court reaffirmed the duty of banks and financial institutions to conduct thorough due diligence, especially when accepting corporate property as collateral. Failure to verify corporate approvals or the identity of borrowers may lead t

The High Court found that the loan agreement for UGX 2,550,000/= (dated 17th September 2019) lacked the signatures of both the lender and a third-party witness, contravening Section 84(1) of the Tier 4 Microfinance Institutions and Money Lenders Act.

The court found that the sale was not fraudulent nor conducted without valuation, but the transfer was illegal, and the sale was conducted in breach of the guarantee contract due to failure to notify the Plaintiff.