The High Court Commercial Division in Kampala has dismissed a Shs1.4 billion lawsuit filed by Akright Projects Limited against Ecobank Uganda Limited, Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited and Shelter Afrique over a disputed payment allegedly made more than 15 years ago.
Justice Patience Rubagumya dismissed Civil Suit No. 137 of 2026 after ruling that the case was filed outside the statutory limitation period and that the issues raised by Akright arose from the execution and reconciliation of an earlier court decree.
The judge held that the dispute could not properly be brought through a fresh suit because it related to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of an existing decree.
The case concerned Shs1,419,806,753, which Akright claimed it instructed Stanbic Bank to transfer on January 18, 2011 from an escrow account to account number 1101200224013, which the company believed was operated by Shelter Afrique through Ecobank.
The dispute stems from a USD1.5 million loan that Shelter Afrique extended to Akright under a securitised Loan Agreement dated March 31, 2005, together with an addendum executed in July of the same year. The facility was secured by a legal mortgage over Akright’s property.
After Akright fell into arrears, Shelter Afrique sued the company in Civil Suit No. 397 of 2009. The case was later withdrawn after the parties agreed to restructure the repayment arrangements.
When the repayment difficulties continued, Shelter Afrique filed another case, Civil Suit No. 249 of 2010. The matter was subsequently resolved through mediation, resulting in a consent judgment.
Under the consent judgment, Akright agreed to pay Shelter Afrique USD1,473,108.73 as the admitted outstanding amount. The parties also agreed to reconcile the loan account to determine whether any additional interest, penalties or other charges were payable.
The reconciliation later became the source of the dispute involving the two banks.
In 2024, Akright filed Miscellaneous Application No. 630 of 2024 against Shelter Afrique, seeking, among other orders, clarification of the amount outstanding under the decree.
The court subsequently confirmed USD743,129.23 as the undisputed outstanding amount and directed the parties to undertake reconciliation in accordance with the consent judgment.
According to Akright General Manager Ernest Nkoba, the company discovered the disputed payment during that reconciliation exercise.
Akright’s records indicated that on January 18, 2011, the company had instructed Stanbic Bank to transfer Shs1,419,806,753 from an escrow account to the Ecobank account it understood to belong to Shelter Afrique.
However, Akright said Shelter Afrique informed it on September 18, 2025 that it had never acknowledged receiving the money and did not own the account to which the funds had allegedly been transferred.
Stanbic maintained that it had executed the transfer in accordance with Akright’s instructions.
Akright subsequently sued Ecobank, Stanbic and Shelter Afrique, seeking recovery of the disputed funds.
Ecobank challenged the case at the preliminary stage, arguing that the alleged transaction took place on January 18, 2011, yet Akright did not file the suit until February 17, 2026, approximately 15 years later.
The bank argued that claims based on contract or tort are generally subject to a six-year limitation period under the Limitation Act.
Ecobank further contended that the dispute was directly connected to the reconciliation and execution of the consent judgment in the earlier proceedings and therefore should have been addressed within those proceedings rather than through a new suit.
Ecobank was represented by lawyers John Musiime and Emmanuel Mucunguzi of Dentons Advocates, formerly Kyagaba & Otatiina Advocates, while Akright Projects was represented by Alfred Okello Oryem of Okello Oryem & Co. Advocates.
In her ruling, Justice Rubagumya upheld Ecobank’s preliminary objections.
The judge found that the disputed payment formed part of the reconciliation process arising from the earlier proceedings and that execution of the consent judgment was still ongoing.
She relied on Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act, which requires questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree to be determined by the court executing the decree rather than through a separate suit.
Akright had argued that the limitation period should not defeat its claim because it only discovered the alleged problem with the payment in September 2025.
However, Justice Rubagumya noted that while the law may permit limitation to be postponed in certain circumstances involving fraud or concealment, such circumstances must be properly pleaded.
The judge found that Akright’s original plaint did not contain allegations of fraud or concealment.
Instead, allegations of fraud were introduced through an amended plaint filed on March 30, 2026, after Ecobank had already raised limitation as a defence.
The court also found that the amended plaint had been filed without the required leave and therefore could not remedy the defects in the original claim.
Justice Rubagumya consequently struck both the original and amended plaints from the record, dismissed Civil Suit No. 137 of 2026 and awarded Ecobank the costs of the application and the suit.
The ruling was delivered electronically in accordance with the Judicature (Electronic Filing, Service and Virtual Proceedings) Rules, 2025.
English 