The High Court Commercial Division in Kampala has dismissed a 1.4 billion shillings 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 on Monday dismissed Civil Suit No. 137 of 2026 after finding that the case was filed out of time and also arose from the execution and reconciliation of an earlier court decree, making a fresh suit legally incompetent.
The dispute centres on 1,419,806,753, which Akright says it instructed Stanbic Bank to transfer on January 18, 2011, to an account allegedly belonging to Shelter Afrique at Ecobank. The case dates back to a USD1.5 million loan that Shelter Afrique advanced to Akright Projects under a securitised Loan Agreement dated March 31, 2005, and an addendum executed in July of the same year. The loan was secured by a legal mortgage over Akright’s property.
After Akright defaulted on repayment, Shelter Afrique first sued the company in Civil Suit No. 397 of 2009. The case was later withdrawn after the parties agreed to reschedule repayment. When the repayment difficulties persisted, Shelter Afrique filed another case, Civil Suit No. 249 of 2010. The dispute was eventually settled through mediation, resulting in a consent judgment.
Under the consent judgment, Akright was required to pay Shelter Afrique USD1,473,108.73 as the admitted amount, while the parties agreed to reconcile the loan account to establish any additional interest, penalties and other charges that could be due.
As a result, the reconciliation process later became the centre of the dispute involving Ecobank and Stanbic. In 2024, Akright filed Miscellaneous Application No. 630 of 2024 against Shelter Afrique seeking, among other orders, clarification of the outstanding decretal amount. The court confirmed USD743,129.23 as the undisputed outstanding amount and directed the parties to carry out reconciliation in accordance with the consent judgment.
According to Akright’s General Manager, Ernest Nkoba, it was during this reconciliation that the company discovered a discrepancy concerning a payment of Shs 1,419,806,753.
Akright’s records showed that on January 18, 2011, it had instructed Stanbic Bank, its banker, to transfer the money from an escrow account to account number 1101200224013, which Akright said had been indicated as an account operated by Shelter Afrique at Ecobank. However, on September 18, 2025, Shelter Afrique reportedly told Akright that it had never acknowledged receiving the money and denied owning the account at Ecobank.
Stanbic, on the other hand, maintained that it had effected the transfer as instructed. Akright then filed Civil Suit No. 137 of 2026 against Ecobank, Stanbic and Shelter Afrique, seeking to recover the disputed funds.
Ecobank challenged the suit, arguing that the alleged transaction occurred on January 18, 2011, but the case was not filed until February 17, 2026, about 15 years later.
The bank argued that claims founded on contract or tort must generally be brought within six years under the Limitation Act. It also argued that the dispute arose from the reconciliation and execution of the consent judgment in the earlier case and therefore could not be pursued through a separate suit.
Ecobank was represented by Lawyers John Musiime and Emmanuel Mucunguzi of Dentons Advocates, formerly Kyagaba & Otatiina Advocates. Akright Projects was represented by Alfred Okello Oryem of Okello Oryem & Co. Advocates. In her ruling today, Justice Rubagumya has agreed with Ecobank on the preliminary objections.
The judge found that the disputed payment arose from the reconciliation ordered in the earlier proceedings and that the execution of the consent judgment was still ongoing. She held that Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act 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.
The court also considered Akright’s argument that it only discovered the problem with the payment in September 2025. Rubagumya noted that although the law allows limitation to be postponed in certain cases involving fraud or concealment, such circumstances must be properly pleaded.
The judge found that Akright’s original case did not plead concealment of fraud. Instead, allegations of fraud were introduced in an amended case filed on March 30, 2026, after Ecobank had raised limitation as a defence.
The court further found that the amended case/plaint had been filed without leave and could not cure the defects in the original claim. Justice Rubagumya has consequently struck both the original and amended plaints off the record, dismissed Civil Suit No. 137 of 2026 and awarded the costs of the application and the suit to Ecobank. The ruling was delivered electronically under the Judicature (Electronic Filing, Service and Virtual Proceedings) Rules, 2025-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
