The High Court in Kampala has overturned a lower court decision that had ordered Post Bank Uganda Limited to refund UGX 15.3 million to a former immigration officer who claimed his salary and official facilitation funds were wrongly paid to another person’s account.
Justice Simon Peter M. Kinobe of the Civil Division of the High Court ruled that Post Bank was not negligent when it processed payments to an account held by a person whose names closely resembled those of the claimant, William Barigye.
The case arose from a 2015 civil suit filed by Barigye against Post Bank, in which he demanded UGX 15,362,412, saying the money was intended for him as an employee of the Directorate of Citizenship and Immigration Control under the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Barigye told court that he had never operated an account with Post Bank and received his salary through Centenary Bank. He argued that another person identified as William Baligye, who had an account with Post Bank, received his salary and other allowances between December 2012 and June 2014.
He accused the bank of negligence, saying it continued releasing funds to the wrong account despite being informed of the mistake by the Directorate of Citizenship and Immigration Control in August 2014.
The Mengo Chief Magistrate’s Court had earlier agreed with Barigye and ordered Post Bank to refund the money, pay interest at 24 percent per annum from December 2012, and also awarded UGX 10 million in general damages and UGX 5 million in exemplary damages.
Post Bank appealed the decision, arguing that it had acted on payment instructions received from the Bank of Uganda and that the account holder had presented identification documents showing the name “Barigye William.”
In his judgment delivered on July 27, 2026, Justice Kinobe found that Barigye did not have a banking relationship with Post Bank and therefore the bank did not owe him a direct duty of care.
The judge noted that the bank’s relationship was with its account holder, who used the names “Barigye William” and “Baligye William” interchangeably.
“Barigye, the plaintiff, did not hold any account with Post Bank and so he had no relationship with the bank. This is with the result that there was no relationship of proximity,” Justice Kinobe ruled.
The court further observed that Post Bank could not have reasonably detected the alleged irregularity because the account holder withdrew the money using documents bearing the name “Barigye William.”
Justice Kinobe said the complaint was only raised in August 2014, long after the funds had already been withdrawn.
“It is therefore my finding that the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact when she found that the appellant bank acted negligently,” he ruled.
The High Court consequently set aside the entire judgment and orders of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Mengo.
However, the court declined to award costs to either party, noting that the matter raised an important legal question regarding the relationship between banks and their customers.
“Each party shall bear its own costs of this appeal,” Justice Kinobe ordered.
English 