High Court dismisses claim against Equity Bank for delayed CRB clearance following a consent judgment, affirming that the CRB cannot update records without the bank’s confirmation.

Introduction

Picture this: you once obtained a loan from a bank, fully repaid it, and even secured a consent judgment confirming your discharge. Yet, years later, when you approach another bank for fresh credit, your Credit Reference Bureau (CRB) record still reflects you as a persistent defaulter. Such an error not only undermines your financial credibility but also blocks access to new facilities, potentially damaging both your business and reputation. Naturally, you would consider suing the bank for negligence in failing to update its records and, perhaps, for defamation arising from the inaccurate listing.

This was precisely the situation before the High Court in Nalubega Margaret v Equity Bank (U) Limited (Civil Suit No. 904 of 2022) [2025] UGCommC 338 (22 September 2025). The court was invited to determine whether the bank was liable for the failure to clear the plaintiff’s CRB record despite a consent judgment discharging her of indebtedness, and whether such inaction could sustain claims for negligence, defamation, and damages.

In resolving the dispute, the court clarified the respective obligations of banks and CRBs under the Financial Institutions (Credit Reference Bureau) Regulations, 2022, and provided important guidance on the requirements for proving loss, reputational harm, and liability in credit reporting disputes.

Facts

The plaintiff, Nalubega Margaret, operated a loan account (No. 1005200314304) with the defendant, Equity Bank (U) Limited, which included a running loan facility secured by multiple certificates of title.

In 2016, the plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 630 of 2016 against the defendant, seeking discharge of her indebtedness and release of her titles.

On June 10, 2019, the parties entered a consent judgment in that suit, under which;

1. The plaintiff was fully discharged from all loan obligations.

2. Her certificates of title (covering properties in LRV 3235 Folio 13, FRV 726 Folio 7, LRV 693 Folio 11, and FRV 842 Folio 19) were to be released, along with mortgage release instruments.

3. The defendant was to pay the plaintiff UGX 50,000,000 (inclusive of damages and costs) as full and final settlement.

4. These terms were to be implemented within 21 days of the agreement.

The defendant complied by paying the settlement sum to the plaintiff's account and issuing a discharge notice to the Registrar of Titles on June 11, 2019.

However, the plaintiff discovered that her CRB financial card (managed by Compuscan, now Creditinfo) still reflected her as a defaulter with arrears of UGX 149,073,000.

This stemmed from the account being marked as a "write-off" as of December 31, 2021, rather than "fully paid" as of April 16, 2021.

Post-judgment, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant on June 13, 2019, requesting CRB clearance.

The defendant referred her to Compuscan, which advised that updates required instructions from the originating bank (the defendant).

The plaintiff claimed this ongoing negative listing prevented her from securing a UGX 200,000,000 personal loan and a UGX 120,000,000 facility for Harvest Women’s Organisation (where she was director), using her land in LRV 693 Folio 11 Plot 20 Lubogo, Jinja (0.1862 hectares) as security.

She alleged repeated visits to the defendant's head office from 2019 onward yielded no resolution, causing financial losses, emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety, and business disruption.

The plaintiff characterized the defendant's inaction as negligent and defamatory.

The defendant denied liability, asserting full compliance with the consent judgment and that CRB clearances fall under the independent purview of the CRB, established by the Bank of Uganda.

It argued that the plaintiff failed to follow procedures by not promptly providing her CRB report for verification. The defendant only received the report on September 19, 2023 (after suit filing), forwarded it to Creditinfo the same day, and the update was effected by September 21, 2023.

Issues

1. Whether the defendant is liable for the non-clearance of the mortgage on the CRB financial card.

2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Submissions

Plaintiff’s Submissions

The counsel for the plaintiff emphasised that the burden of proof in civil suits lies on the plaintiff to establish their case on a balance of probabilities (citing Sections 101–103 of the Evidence Act, Cap. 8, and Miller v. Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372).

The consent judgment in Civil Suit No. 630 of 2016 was a binding contract (per Section 2(c) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 71, and Sabiiti Eric v. Kampala Capital City Authority [Misc. Application No. 316 of 2017]), incorporating elements of free consent and enforceability (Printing & Numerical Registering Co. v. Sampson [1875] LR 19 Eq. 462).

The defendant's failure to update the CRB constituted a breach, as banks are obligated to relay accurate post-settlement data as per Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v. Uganda Crocs Ltd [2001–2005] HCB 68; Huddersfield Banking Co. Ltd v. Henry Lister & Co. Ltd [1895] 2 Ch. 273).

This negligence led to defamation and quantifiable losses, entitling the plaintiff to the sought declarations, aggravated damages (UGX 150,000,000 for emotional/business harm), punitive damages (UGX 100,000,000 for arbitrary conduct), costs, and interest.

The consent judgment discharged her debt and bound the defendant to act in good faith.

Defendant’s Submissions

The defendant's counsel urged dismissal via preliminary objection, arguing no cause of action existed, as the plaintiff failed to show a violated right attributable to the defendant as per Auto Garage v. Motokov [1971] EA 514; Kapeka Coffee Works Ltd v. Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust [CACA No. 1 of 2000].

The consent judgment was fully executed, with payment and title releases completed.

That on Issue 1, CRB functions are independent under Regulation 40 of the Financial Institutions (Credit Reference Bureau) Regulations, 2022 (S.I. No. 94 of 2022), requiring the CRB, not the bank, to review and rectify reports; banks merely relay data.

The plaintiff delayed providing her CRB report until 2023, and no evidence linked the listing to loan denials or losses.

On remedies, the claims were a "fishing expedition" unsupported by proof, warranting dismissal with costs.

No rejoinder submissions were filed by the plaintiff.

Court’s Findings

On Cause of Action

The court first addressed the defendant's preliminary objection, overruling it with clear reasoning. The court observed that a cause of action fundamentally requires facts demonstrating a right enjoyed by the plaintiff, its violation, and the defendant's resultant liability as per Auto Garage v. Motokov [1971] EA 514; Attorney General v. Oluoch [1972] EA 392; Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Ed., p. 214.

Assuming the averments in the plaint to be true, as mandated by precedent (Crane Bank Ltd (In Receivership) v. Sudhir Ruparelia [CACA No. 252 of 2019]), the court noted that the defendant's failure to update the plaintiff's CRB records following the consent judgment disclosed a potential breach sufficient to establish a viable claim.

This determination propelled the matter to its merits, guided by Section 98 and Order 6 rules 28–30 of the Civil Procedure Rules, S.I. 71-3, alongside the foundational principles articulated in Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696.

Therefore, the preliminary objection was overruled.

On Liability for CRB Clearance

The court noted on whether the defendant bore liability for the non-clearance of the mortgage from the CRB financial card, the court established a framework of shared responsibility for the protracted delay.

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 witness).

The court reaffirmed this through the evidence of PW1 from Creditinfo (formerly Compuscan), who confirmed that the defendant's instructions were received and actioned between September 19 and 21, 2023, successfully reclassifying the plaintiff's account from "write-off" (as of December 31, 2021) to "fully paid" (as of April 16, 2021).

While CRB rectification is primarily the duty of Creditinfo, banks must submit accurate and timely borrower information.

Both parties contributed to the delay; the bank could have accessed and rectified the report directly, but failed to act diligently.

The plaintiff also delayed providing her credit report despite free access to it.

Thus, liability was shared.

On Defamation

The court rejected the claim, finding it entirely unsubstantiated. It reaffirmed the core elements of defamation as requiring proof of a false and injurious statement published to a third party without justification as per Esther Kisaakye v. Sarah Kadama [Civil Suit No. 194 of 2013]; Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Ed., p. 479.

Here, no evidence emerged of the defendant disseminating inaccurate information to the CRB or others; the grievance distilled to mere inaction in timely updates, which the court clarified did not satisfy the tort's threshold of affirmative publication

Defamation requires proof of a false statement published to third parties injurious to reputation.

Plaintiff adduced no evidence that the bank published defamatory material.

The claim of defamation, therefore, failed.

On Loss and Damages

The court observed that the Plaintiff failed to prove financial loss or rejection of loan applications due to the CRB entries.

The Loan application documents presented lacked bank acknowledgements or evidence of rejection.

And no damages for defamation or business loss were awarded.

Holding

1. The suit was dismissed.

2. The plaintiff failed to prove liability, loss, or defamation on a balance of probabilities. No remedies (declarations, damages, costs, or interest) were awarded.

3. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Key Takeaways

1. Consent judgments are binding; once parties agree, they cannot re-litigate the same obligations unless breach of the consent is proven.

2. CRB obligations are shared; banks must promptly update borrower data, while borrowers must monitor their credit records and lodge complaints directly with CRBs.

3. Proof of loss is crucial; courts will not award damages without clear evidence of financial harm or reputational injury.

4. Defamation in banking disputes is hard to prove; inaccurate CRB entries, without proof of publication by the bank to third parties, do not amount to defamation.

5. Practical compliance gap, this case highlights the importance of banks proactively ensuring CRB records are updated to avoid litigation and reputational risk.