Shine Pay (U) Ltd v Sarah Kagoro and Anor - (HCT-00-CC-CS 548 of 2004) [2006] UGCommC 13 (25 April 2006)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f36\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Tahoma;} {\f251\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f252\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f254\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f255\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;} {\f256\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f257\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f258\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f259\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);} {\f611\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Tahoma CE;}{\f612\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Tahoma Cyr;}{\f614\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Tahoma Greek;}{\f615\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Tahoma Tur;}{\f616\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Tahoma (Hebrew);} {\f617\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Tahoma (Arabic);}{\f618\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Tahoma Baltic;}{\f619\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Tahoma (Vietnamese);}{\f620\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 Tahoma (Thai);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255; \red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0; \red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid11472676 footer;}{\*\cs16 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid11472676 page number;}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid15644\rsid136024\rsid425796\rsid482234\rsid801257\rsid872560\rsid994969\rsid1136281\rsid1316352\rsid1996171\rsid2176779\rsid2257483\rsid2577996\rsid2832993\rsid2914315\rsid2916277\rsid3219918 \rsid3353820\rsid3411165\rsid3431743\rsid3504368\rsid3874394\rsid3939167\rsid4006488\rsid4131425\rsid4356409\rsid5126627\rsid5129091\rsid5324955\rsid5332440\rsid5333623\rsid5520737\rsid5706021\rsid5847271\rsid5928339\rsid5990810\rsid6041232\rsid6053525 \rsid6171497\rsid6294137\rsid6387007\rsid6425492\rsid6434574\rsid6586317\rsid6634570\rsid6764756\rsid6772951\rsid7161076\rsid7283966\rsid7355925\rsid7359958\rsid7432333\rsid7489656\rsid7542455\rsid7556410\rsid7760812\rsid7803031\rsid7893209\rsid7958957 \rsid8133030\rsid8138710\rsid8142179\rsid8533999\rsid8721462\rsid8807031\rsid8850555\rsid8876394\rsid8988737\rsid9053363\rsid9441094\rsid9634185\rsid9638662\rsid9715539\rsid9777285\rsid9835959\rsid9909908\rsid9912881\rsid9922928\rsid9984227\rsid10040883 \rsid10255131\rsid10443648\rsid10497327\rsid10769559\rsid10952161\rsid11106756\rsid11230838\rsid11472676\rsid11485903\rsid11547331\rsid11684364\rsid11757099\rsid11812633\rsid12000064\rsid12393826\rsid12469876\rsid12477608\rsid12613225\rsid12659717 \rsid12726110\rsid13505381\rsid13988090\rsid14032100\rsid14045356\rsid14055315\rsid14231691\rsid14233339\rsid14245093\rsid14304001\rsid14559359\rsid14633983\rsid14907277\rsid14969787\rsid15668229\rsid16022241\rsid16078475\rsid16146189\rsid16199883 \rsid16452769}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.6568;}{\info{\title THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA}{\author ikobusinge}{\operator Harry Mak}{\creatim\yr2006\mo5\dy17\hr11\min2}{\revtim\yr2006\mo5\dy17\hr11\min2}{\printim\yr2006\mo4\dy26\hr12\min24}{\version2} {\edmins0}{\nofpages3}{\nofwords2442}{\nofchars13923}{\*\company Courts of Judicature}{\nofcharsws16333}{\vern24579}}\margl1728\margr1152 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin \dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1728\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct\asianbrkrule\nojkernpunct\rsidroot7161076 \fet0 {\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid9922928 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid9922928 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid9922928 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid9922928 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid7161076\sftnbj {\footer \pard\plain \s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\pvpara\phmrg\posxc\posy0\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9715539 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs16\insrsid10769559 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\cs16\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid8533999 1}}}{\cs16\insrsid10769559 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid10769559 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs28\insrsid1136281\charrsid6634570 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7161076 {\b\f36\fs28\insrsid7161076 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA \par \par IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA \par (COMMERCIAL }{\b\f36\fs28\insrsid482234 COURT }{\b\f36\fs28\insrsid7161076 DIVISION) \par \par }{\b\f36\fs28\insrsid482234 HCT-00-CC-CS-0}{\b\f36\fs28\insrsid7161076 548 OF 2004 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7161076 {\b\f36\fs28\insrsid7161076 \par \par SHINE PAY (U) LTD :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PLAINTIFF \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2914315 {\b\f36\fs28\insrsid7161076 VERSUS \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7161076 {\b\f36\fs28\insrsid7161076 \par 1. SARAH KAGORO \par 2. LITTLE SISTERS CO. LTD :::::::::::::::::::: DEFENDANTS \par \par \par BEFORE: }{\b\f36\fs28\ul\insrsid7161076\charrsid2914315 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE YOROKAMU BAMWINE}{\b\f36\fs28\insrsid7161076 \par \par }{\b\f36\fs28\ul\insrsid7161076\charrsid2914315 J U D G M E N T: \par }{\b\f36\fs28\insrsid6586317 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl480\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6586317 {\f36\insrsid6586317 The Plaintiff, a money lending company, sued the Defendants, jointly and severally, for a sum of US $20.765 and interest on it at the ra te of 15% per month effective 20/6/2004. The suit was filed under summary procedure, 0.33 r 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.}{\f36\insrsid12659717 The Plaintiff obtained Judgment in default of defence. However, the same was set aside}{ \f36\insrsid11757099 vide }{\f36\ul\insrsid11757099 HCMA No. 0201/2005}{\f36\insrsid12613225 and the defence filed a }{\f36\insrsid3431743 W}{\f36\insrsid12613225 ritten }{\f36\insrsid3431743 S}{\f36\insrsid12613225 tatement of Defence in which}{ \f36\insrsid3431743 they denied the Plaintiff\rquote s claim. There are two (2) agreed facts in this case:}{\f36\insrsid6586317 \par }{\f36\insrsid3431743 1.\tab That the Defendants borrowed money from the Plaintiff. \par 2.\tab That the Plaintiff is a registered money lender. \par \par There are four (4) issues for determination: \par 1.\tab Whether the Defendants borrowed US $20.765 from the Plaintiff. \par 2.\tab Whether the Defendants have defaulted in the payments of the said sum of \tab money. \par 3.\tab Whether the interest of 15% per month on any unpaid instalment is excessive \tab and unconscionable. \par }{\f36\insrsid8138710 4.\tab Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies prayed for. \par \par }{\f36\ul\insrsid8138710\charrsid16199883 Counse}{\f36\insrsid8138710 l: \par Mr. David Innocent Nyote for Plaintiff. \par Mr. Patrick Katende for Defendants. \par \par Before I delve into the assessment of evidence in this case, I consider it necessary to state the law on some aspects of this case: \par 1.\tab The Burden of Proof: \par In law, a fact is said to be proved when Court is satisfied as to its truth. The general rule is that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue or question in dispute. When such party adduces evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that what he asserts is true,}{\f36\insrsid2916277 }{\f36\insrsid5706021 he is said to shift the burden of proof: that is, his allegation is presumed to be true, unless his opponent adduces evidence to rebut th e presumption. The standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities. Relating the above to this case, the Plaintiff has alleged that it advanced a loan of US $20.765 to the Defendants. The burden rests on it to prove that allegation.}{ \f36\insrsid8138710 \par \par }{\f36\insrsid5706021 2.\tab Parol Evidence Rule: \par }{\f36\insrsid9984227 The parol evidence rule is to the effect that evidence cannot be admitted (or even if admitted, it cannot be used) to add to, vary or contradict a written instrument. In relation to contracts, it means that where a contract has been reduced to wri ting, neither party can rely on evidence of terms alleged}{\f36\insrsid2176779 to have been agreed, which is extrinsic document, that is, not contained in it. Where, however, there is a dispute as to what transpired between the parties, as in the instant case, evidence can be admitted to show that a written contract has been varied or even rescinded. S.92 (d) of the Evidence Act refers.}{\f36\insrsid9984227 \par }{\f36\insrsid7556410 \par 3.\tab Doctrine of Non-est factum: \par This latin expression simply means \'93it is not his deed\'94. It is an old common law defence which permitted a person who had executed a written document in ignorance of its character to plead that notwithstanding the execution, \'93it is not his deed. \'94 \par }{\f36\insrsid10952161 \par The old position was that the doctrine should not apply in favour of persons of full age and capacity. However, this narrow view of the doctrine has now been discarded such that every case must now be decided on its own unique facts and circumstances.

\par \par I now turn to the evidence as adduced by the parties. \par \par As to whether the Defendants borrowed}{\f36\insrsid14304001 US $20.765 from the Plaintiff, I have considered the evidence of PW1 Eyasu Sirak. It is that on 20/5/2004, through his company (SHINE PAY (U) LTD), he lent the 2}{ \f36\super\insrsid14304001\charrsid14304001 nd}{\f36\insrsid14304001 Defendant, through the 1}{\f36\super\insrsid14304001\charrsid14304001 st}{\f36\insrsid14304001 Defendant, its Managing Director, a sum of US $20.765. His evidence is that the parties signed an agreement, P. Exh. 1. That such an agreement was executed by the Defendants is not denied by the 1}{\f36\super\insrsid14304001\charrsid14304001 st}{\f36\insrsid14304001 Defendant. She admits borrowing money from the Plaintiff}{ \f36\insrsid2914315 but disputes the form of currency alleged by the Plaintiff.}{\f36\insrsid9638662 }{\f36\insrsid2914315 According to her, the Plaintiff lent her Shs.19m and the payment was by cheque, not cash.}{\f36\insrsid9638662 }{ \f36\insrsid2914315 That the parties executed the impugned loan agreement, P. Exh. 1, is therefore not a}{\f36\insrsid8850555 n}{\f36\insrsid2914315 }{\f36\insrsid3353820 issue but a }{\f36\insrsid2914315 fact. The issue is whether }{ \f36\insrsid3353820 money changed hands in the manner stated in the agreement}{\f36\insrsid2914315 . \par \par I must confess that the evidence presented to Court by the parties has caused me considerable discomfort. On the face of it, one party to this case is a fraudst}{\f36\insrsid14559359 e}{\f36\insrsid2914315 r or both of them are. \par \par I have considered the Plaintiff\rquote s side of the story. It is supported by the loan agreement itself, P. Exh.1. There is also the evidence of PW3 and PW4, people who were present when it was being executed. The problem with the }{ \f36\insrsid14559359 evidence of these so called }{\f36\insrsid2914315 independent witnesses is that they were all }{\f36\insrsid14559359 on the Plaintiff\rquote s side}{\f36\insrsid2914315 . None of them can be said to have }{\f36\insrsid14559359 witnessed the agreement on the side of the Defendants}{\f36\insrsid2914315 . }{\f36\insrsid14559359 To that extent, t}{\f36\insrsid2914315 heir evidence is }{\f36\insrsid7542455 highly }{\f36\insrsid2914315 suspect. DW1 Sarah Kagoro state}{ \f36\insrsid14559359 d}{\f36\insrsid2914315 in her evidence that she just signed; that the document could as well have been blank. }{\f36\insrsid9912881 The }{\f36\insrsid8876394 visual appearance of the document itself}{\f36\insrsid9912881 rules out that possibility}{\f36\insrsid2914315 . }{\f36\insrsid9912881 Nothing shows that t}{\f36\insrsid2914315 he document }{\f36\insrsid8876394 was tampered with after execution or that it may}{\f36\insrsid9912881 }{\f36\insrsid2914315 have been blank when she signed it. I have }{\f36\insrsid9912881 therefore ruled out such a}{\f36\insrsid7283966 possibility. In any case she would be careless to }{\f36\insrsid7489656 do}{\f36\insrsid7283966 that sort of thing and carelessness of the signer excludes the doctrine of non-est factum. A person cannot invoke the doctrine if he/she carelessly signs a document containing blanks which are later filled in otherwise than in accordance with his/her}{ \f36\insrsid9909908 instructions. See: }{\b\f36\insrsid9909908\charrsid136024 United Dominions Trust Ltd \endash Vs- Western [1976] QB 513}{\f36\insrsid9909908 .}{\f36\insrsid2914315 \par }{\f36\insrsid9053363 \par In my }{\f36\insrsid8876394 opinion}{\f36\insrsid9053363 , }{\f36\insrsid7489656 when}{\f36\insrsid9053363 the evidence }{\f36\insrsid7489656 is considered }{\f36\insrsid9053363 together, }{\f36\insrsid7489656 it raises}{\f36\insrsid9053363 a }{ \f36\insrsid8876394 number of possibilities, including}{\f36\insrsid9053363 }{\f36\insrsid11472676 that what}{\f36\insrsid9053363 the document states is not necessarily what the parties did subsequent to its execution. }{\f36\insrsid6171497 One such}{ \f36\insrsid9053363 possibility }{\f36\insrsid7489656 finds favour in}{\f36\insrsid9053363 the evidence of DW1 Sarah Kagoro. She has produced a copy of a cheque dated 20/5/2004. The cheque indicates the payee as Little Sisters. Her evidence is that she banked that chequ e and she has produced a bank statement showing, among other things, that a cheque dated 20/5/2004 was on 25/5/2004}{\f36\insrsid3939167 cleared in favour of Little Sisters. It was in the sum of Shs.19,000,000-. It is a cheque drawn on an A/C of Eladam Enterprises Ltd, a }{\f36\insrsid10497327 sister }{\f36\insrsid3939167 company }{\f36\insrsid10497327 to the Plaintiff }{ \f36\insrsid3939167 in which PW1 Eyasu Sirak by his own admission owns majority shares. The Plaintiff has not led evidence to show that }{\f36\insrsid1316352 Eladam Enterprises Ltd had dealings with the Defendants in another capacity or that }{ \f36\insrsid3939167 the cheque is a forgery. On the contrary, on seeing the signature, Eyasu\rquote s response was that it looks like his. He did not say that }{\f36\insrsid7489656 it is not his; or that }{\f36\insrsid3939167 he s}{\f36\insrsid11485903 uspected the signature }{\f36\insrsid6434574 and}{\f36\insrsid2257483 /}{\f36\insrsid11485903 or the cheque to be a forgery}{\f36\insrsid2257483 ;}{\f36\insrsid11485903 or that Eladam Enterprises Ltd did not pay a sum of Shs.19,000, 000- indicated on that cheque}{\f36\insrsid6434574 and }{\f36\insrsid2257483 on }{\f36\insrsid6434574 the bank statement of the Defendants}{\f36\insrsid11485903 .}{\f36\insrsid9053363 \par }{\f36\insrsid14633983 \par In my view, }{\f36\insrsid5332440 Court is entitled to draw an adverse inference on the basis of the Plaintiff\rquote s failure to lead evidence of the bank on the matter. It is evidence}{\f36\insrsid14907277 which shows that Shs.19m}{ \f36\insrsid8721462 was paid to Little Sisters at the very time when the Plaintiff alleges that it paid }{\f36\insrsid14907277 them }{\f36\insrsid8721462 US $20.765. Court has come to this conclusion }{\f36\insrsid14907277 in view}{\f36\insrsid8721462 PW1 Eyasu\rquote s evidence that other than this transaction, that is, the subject }{\f36\insrsid2257483 matter }{\f36\insrsid8721462 of this suit, the Defendants did not have any other }{\f36\insrsid2257483 known }{\f36\insrsid8721462 dealings with him or }{\f36\insrsid2257483 with }{\f36\insrsid8721462 Eladam Enterprises Ltd}{\f36\insrsid6387007 where he holds majority shares}{\f36\insrsid12393826 and he was apparently the sole signatory to the company account}{\f36\insrsid8721462 . }{\f36\insrsid14633983 \par }{\f36\insrsid15644 \par In the result, Court finds that the cheque dated 20/5/2004 and the Bank Statement reflecting that Little Sisters A/C was credited with a sum of Shs.19m on 25/5/2004 on a cheque issued by a company where }{\f36\insrsid6387007 PW1 owns majority sha}{ \f36\insrsid2257483 r}{\f36\insrsid6387007 es, are}{\f36\insrsid15644 strong }{\f36\insrsid6387007 pieces of }{\f36\insrsid15644 circumstantial evidence }{\f36\insrsid6387007 which}{\f36\insrsid15644 corroborate the 1}{ \f36\super\insrsid15644\charrsid15644 st}{\f36\insrsid15644 Defendant\rquote s evidence that although she signed a loan agreement}{\f36\insrsid14245093 acknowledging receipt of US $20.765, she was actually not paid }{\f36\insrsid6387007 in }{ \f36\insrsid14245093 that }{\f36\insrsid5928339 currency }{\f36\insrsid6171497 or that much }{\f36\insrsid14245093 but }{\f36\insrsid5928339 was paid }{\f36\insrsid14245093 a sum of Shs.19m }{\f36\insrsid6171497 Uganda money and }{\f36\insrsid14245093 by way of a cheque. Accordingly, the loan agreement }{\f36\insrsid2257483 could as well be telling}{\f36\insrsid14245093 a lie a bout itself. It cannot be relied upon as evidence that excludes other evidence, written or oral, in this case oral. While the Plaintiff }{\f36\insrsid2257483 has }{\f36\insrsid14245093 adduced evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that what it asserts is true, the Defendants have adduced }{\f36\insrsid13505381 more }{\f36\insrsid2257483 credible}{\f36\insrsid14245093 evidence to rebut that presumption.}{\f36\insrsid15644 \par }{\f36\insrsid2257483 \par }{\f36\insrsid5520737 Accordingly, Court is not satisfied that the Defendants borrowed US $20.765 from the Plaintiff.}{\f36\insrsid6764756 }{\f36\insrsid3411165 H}{\f36\insrsid6764756 owever, }{\f36\insrsid7958957 it is }{\f36\insrsid6764756 satisfied } {\f36\insrsid7958957 on a balance of probabilities }{\f36\insrsid6764756 that they }{\f36\insrsid7958957 received}{\f36\insrsid6764756 Shs.19m from the Plaintiff}{\f36\insrsid7958957 \rquote s sister}{\f36\insrsid9634185 com pany, Eladam Enterprises Ltd, on a cheque signed by the Plaintiff\rquote s Managing Director, PW1 Eyasu, notwithstanding the purported denial of that transaction by him. I have not found the first issue proved to the satisfaction of Court or at all and I answer it in the negative.}{\f36\insrsid5520737 \par }{\f36\insrsid9634185 \par }{\f36\insrsid16022241 As to whether the Defendants have defaulted in the payments of the said sum of money, the answer is No, as long as the }{\f36\insrsid6764756 alleged }{\f36\insrsid16022241 sum of money relates to the Plaintiff\rquote s claim of US $20.765.}{\f36\insrsid12477608 Having said so, the Defendants evidence is that other than the amount realised from the sale of their sewing machines, they have not paid anything more to the Plaintiff. Having found that the Defendants }{ \f36\insrsid3874394 received}{\f36\insrsid12477608 Shs.19,000,000- from the Plaintiff, and in view of the undisputed evidence that Shs.1,400,000- was realised from the sale of the attached property, }{\f36\insrsid8133030 I hold}{\f36\insrsid12477608 that }{\f36\insrsid8133030 subject to what I will be saying later in this Judgment, }{\f36\insrsid12477608 a sum of Shs.17,600,000- is still outstanding on the loan.}{\f36\insrsid16022241 \par }{\f36\insrsid12477608 \par As to whether the interest of 15% per month on any unpaid instalment is excessive and unconscionable, in a sister case to this one, }{\b\f36\insrsid12477608\charrsid136024 Shine Pay (U) Ltd \endash Vs- Kiyonga Francis HCCS No. 547/2004}{ \f36\insrsid11684364 (unreported), I had occasion to express an opinion on a similar issue. The terms of the loan in that case were similar to the instant one. I stated in that case, and I so reiterate herein, that interest, if it is not part of the contract terms is a discretionary remedy. The interest claimed by the Plaintiff in the instant case is not based on the agreement. If anything, the agreement

only provided for payment of a penalty, not interest, in the event of a default by the Defendants on the principal sum. 15% per month translates to 180% per annum which by our standards is a rip off, especially in a situation where the parties agree that it was an interest free loan, a friendly one so to say.}{\f36\insrsid6425492 There would be nothing friendly about interest of 180% per annum when the Commercial one }{\f36\insrsid8133030 currently stands at}{\f36\insrsid6425492 25%. In my view, while the penalty may have been intended to discourage willful defaults, it was an indirect and disguised charging of exhobitant interest. This Court has a discretion to award interest at less than the contractual rate when the rate is manifestly excessive.}{\f36\insrsid6772951 See: }{\b\f36\insrsid6772951\charrsid136024 Juma \endash Vs- Habib [1975] EA 103 (T).}{\f36\ul\insrsid12477608 \par }{\f36\ul\insrsid6772951 \par }{\f36\insrsid6772951 From the evidence on recor d, Court is satisfied that the Defendants have kept the Plaintiff out of its money. However, from the evidence of DW1 Kagoro, the Defendants did not have peace with that money. First, although they had 6 months within which to retire the loan, as soon a s they defaulted on the initial instalment, the Plaintiff filed this suit. Secondly, a person who had been given Shs.19m was now asked to pay US $20.765, an amount twice as much as the loan. I accept the defence evidence on this point. In these circumst ances, interest }{\f36\insrsid13505381 would}{\f36\insrsid6772951 be awarded on the }{\f36\insrsid11106756 special damages }{\f36\insrsid6772951 at the rate of 25% per annum from the date of }{\f36\insrsid11106756 Judgment}{\f36\insrsid6772951 till payment in full.}{\f36\insrsid13505381 I so order.}{\f36\insrsid6772951 \par }{\f36\insrsid13505381 \par }{\f36\insrsid425796 As to whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies prayed for, it is common ground that the Defendants}{\f36\insrsid16078475 \rquote }{\f36\insrsid425796 s ewing machines were attached in execution and sold. From the evidence, they were attached }{\f36\insrsid8988737 around}{\f36\insrsid425796 24/2/2005 and }{\f36\insrsid8988737 thereafter }{\f36\insrsid425796 advertised for sale. }{\f36\insrsid8142179 There is evidence that the said attachment was done in the presence of the 1}{\f36\super\insrsid8142179\charrsid8142179 st}{\f36\insrsid8142179 Defendant. However, nothing is on record to have been done by her to stop the sale of the attached property until mid March 2005 when with the assistance of counsel they filed HCMA No. 0201 of 2005 for an order to set aside the exparte Judgment. This application included a prayer for s tay of execution. As fate would have it, the same could not be heard till close to mid May 2005. There being no order of stay, which could easily have been made by the Registrar as an interim remedy pending determination of the substantive application, i f any had been requested for as is usual practice in matters of this nature, the Court Bailiff went ahead and disposed of the attached property before the application was heard. Given that an application to set aside an exparte Judgment cannot of itself be relied upon to stay execution, I\rquote m unable to fault the Bailiff\rquote s action. The Defendants should have known better. }{\f36\insrsid425796 For a person who claims that she had not been served with the plaint and was therefore impliedly surprised by the attachment, it appears to me that the objection to the sale was designedly delayed}{\f36\insrsid5129091 and therefore an after thought}{ \f36\insrsid425796 . It offended the proviso to 0.19 r 55 of the Civil Procedure Rules.}{\f36\insrsid7432333 There will therefore be no order to reverse the sale.}{\f36\insrsid425796 \par }{\f36\insrsid6294137 Be that as it may, I have considered the evidence that eight sewing machines were sold. The bailiff talked of a Valuation Report}{\f36\insrsid15668229 in his possession but none is on record to guide Court on this issue. They are said to have been industrial sewing machines of high value but other than the evidence tendered by the Defendants regarding the cost of these machines }{\f36\insrsid12726110 some }{\f36\insrsid15668229 year}{\f36\insrsid7355925 s}{\f36\insrsid15668229 ago, Court has not been favoured with an independent report indicating their fair value before the impugned sale. In all these circumstances, the possibility that they were under valued }{\f36\insrsid12726110 or sold at give away prices }{ \f36\insrsid15668229 cannot be ruled out.}{\f36\insrsid6294137 \par }{\f36\insrsid12726110 \par }{\f36\insrsid15668229 Taking into account the circumstances of this case and the discredited nature of the Plaintiff\rquote s claim, Court }{\f36\insrsid12726110 has decided to}{\f36\insrsid15668229 discount the balance }{\f36\insrsid1996171 due on the loan, }{\f36\insrsid15668229 that is, Shs.17,600,000- by a factor of 30% and }{\f36\insrsid1996171 accordingly }{\f36\insrsid15668229 award}{\f36\insrsid12726110 ed}{\f36\insrsid15668229 the Plaintiff a sum of Shs.12,320,000- (twelve million three hundred twenty thousand only}{\f36\insrsid9835959 )}{\f36\insrsid12726110 as special damages}{\f36\insrsid15668229 . I so}{\f36\insrsid12726110 order}{\f36\insrsid15668229 . \par \par It has been suggested by the Defendants that since the}{\f36\insrsid9441094 y}{\f36\insrsid15668229 gave the Plaintiff land comprised in plot 608 Block 273, the Plaintiff should sell the said security instead of suing them and they would only be deemed to have defaulted after the security fails to sell.}{\f36\insrsid14032100 I\rquote m unable to accept that proposal. The Defendants were given the impugned land title by a one Busulwa. DW1 Kagoro did not know him well or at all. Busulwa was only introduced to her by PW3 Lule, an agent for the Plaintiff. It is little wonder that they have not cared to pay the money they borrowed from the Plaintiff. They knew they would defa ult and tell the Plaintiff}{\f36\insrsid14969787 in the face to go and realize the security or else whistle for the money since none of them had any interest in the land. I accept the Plaintiff\rquote s evidence that the security was bogus and cannot be realised. I wonder how the Plaintiff could have accepted it as security for such a hefty sum of money without taking the necessary precautions of verifying its authenticity or }{\f36\insrsid994969 viability}{\f36\insrsid9835959 ;}{\f36\insrsid994969 a fact}{\f36\insrsid1996171 or}{\f36\insrsid994969 at the back of my mind when in the course of this Judgment I observed that one party to this case is a fraudster or both of them are.}{ \f36\insrsid1996171 In my view none of them has come to Court with clean hands.}{\f36\insrsid15668229 \par }{\f36\insrsid994969 \par As regards costs, the usual result is that the loser pays the winner\rquote s costs. However, this practice is discretionary }{\f36\insrsid10443648 so that a winner may not be awa rded his costs, depending on the circumstances of the case. In the instant case, in view of the Plaintiff\rquote s partial}{\f36\insrsid14231691 success and the }{\f36\insrsid4356409 dishonest}{\f36\insrsid14231691 manner in which the parties sought to }{\f36\insrsid4356409 cheat }{\f36\insrsid14231691 each other, Court is }{\f36\insrsid1996171 of the considered}{\f36\insrsid14055315 opinion that an order that eac h party bears its own costs of this suit would meet the ends of justice. I so order.}{\f36\insrsid994969 \par }{\f36\insrsid11812633 \par In the final result, Judgment is entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and severally and the following orders made: \par i.\tab Special damages: Shs.12,320,000- (twelve million three hundred twenty \tab thousand only). \par ii.\tab Interest on (i) at the rate of 25% per annum from the date of }{\f36\insrsid4356409 Judgment till}{\f36\insrsid11812633 \tab payment in full. \par }{\f36\insrsid4356409 iii.\tab }{\f36\insrsid14055315 Each party shall bear its own costs.}{\f36\insrsid11812633 \par \par \par }{\b\f36\insrsid11812633\charrsid11812633 Yorokamu Bamwine \par J U D G E \par 26/04/2006}{\b\f36\insrsid11812633 \par }{\b\f36\insrsid7359958\charrsid7359958 \par }}