High Court in Kampala has ordered businessman Obadiah Ntebakaine to pay USD 3,071,681 (11.39bn) to Prime Finance Company Ltd.
This follows a successful case filed by Prime Finance Company accusing Ntebakaine of Bushenyi Commercial Agencies of failing to pay a loan of USD 200,000 (742M) which accumulated to $ 304,595 (about Shs11.39bn) going by the current exchange rate.
In his recent judgment, Justice Musa Ssekaana ruled that Prime Finance company is entitled to recovery of the loan amount advanced to Ntebakaine with interest of 0.6 percent per week plus costs of the suit.
The plaintiff (Prime Finance Company) was represented by. Ssemambo Rashid whereas the defendant (Obadiah Ntebakaine ) was represented by Farida Ikyimaana in Civil Suit No. 236 of 2019.
Documents before Court show that the parties entered into a loan agreement whereupon the defendant borrowed USD 200,000 (about Shs742m) for a period of two months and thereafter, the defendant issued a postdated cheque dated the 27th of November 2008 amounting to USD 211,062 as repayment over the said loan period covering the principal and interest of the same. It was agreed that in the event that the defendant fails to pay the said loan within the agreed timelines, he was to continue repaying the loan at an interest rate of 0.60% per week on the outstanding balance until the completion of the loan.
However, Ntebakaine serviced his loan until March 2015 when he defaulted and that in spite of the several reminders to honor his obligation and repay the money, he refused to oblige hence prompting the company to take him to Court.
“The parties entered into a loan agreement with specific terms where the defendant was supposed to repay the said amount within a specified period. The plaintiff led evidence showing that the defendant failed to honour this agreement hence committing a breach to the said agreement. This was not rebutted in evidence by the defendant who claims to have settled the loan but does not adduce any evidence to show the same,” Justice Ssekaana said in his written ruling.
He added: “The Evidence Act, Cap 6 under sec. 101 is very clear to the extent that whosever desires the court to give judgment as to any legal right dependent on the existence of facts which he or she asserts must prove that those facts exist. In the circumstances, the plaintiff proved that indeed the defendant breached the said loan agreement thorough its evidence.”
He added that defendant contends that the loan was paid is unsatisfactory in many respects, is materially inconsistent with the admitted documentary evidence, and is irreconcilable with the inherent probabilities of having cleared the loan obligation.
“Therefore my finding is that there was a contract for loan repayment which was not honored by the defendant within the stipulated time. Accordingly, issue 1 is answered in the affirmative,” the judge ruled.
He added: “The plaintiff is therefore entitled to recovery of loan amount advanced with interest as per the agreement of 0.6% per week computed at simple interest until the date of judgment (4-3-2020). The lump-sum figure presented to court appears to have been computed at compound interest by the plaintiff. …The plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 12,000,000. The plaintiff is awarded interest at a rate of 8% on the decretal sum from the date of judgment until payment in full.”
