Court orders Bushenyi businessman to clear Shs1 billion loan

"What is clear in the circumstances is that the contract was entered into and the payments were supposed to be made within a period of two months but were not made as the defendant ( Mr
Ntebakaine, issued a cheque that was dishonored by the bank for lack of sufficient funds," Justice Musa Ssekaana.

"The matter is coming up for final disposal this 4th day of June 2020. By way of consent, of the parties and their accountants and in further presence of court, it is hereby ordered that plaintiff's (Prime Finance Company Ltd) claim recovery under the original judgment is USD 304, 595 (slightly over Shs1b) with an interest of 8% from the date of judgment," he ruled.

The court also awarded the micro finance company general damages of Shs12 million plus costs for having successfully prosecuted this matter against the businessman.

This case arose in 2008 when Mr Ntebakaine to meet
Mr Obadia approached the micro finance company for a loan of USD 200,000, repayable within 11 weeks.

Court documents show that on November 27, 2008, Mr Ntebakaine issued a postdated cheque amounting to $ 211,062 as repayment over the said period but the same was dishonored for lack of sufficient funds in his then Crane Bank account.

The parties had also in their loan obligations, agreed that in the event that Mr Ntebakaine 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 completion of the loan.

In his written defense, the businessman had argued of how he had settled the said loan by 2012 and therefore, had not breached his contractual loan obligations as claimed by the micro finance company.

But Justice Ssekaana in his judgment, held that Ntebakaine had breached his loan repayment obligations since he had failed to adduce evidence to prove that he settled the loan within the stipulated period of 11 weeks.

"The defendant (Mr Obadia), has not adduced any evidence any evidence whatsoever to controvert these statements and evidence brought by the plaintiff (micro finance company). It's however, submitted for the defendant that his loan debt was paid up in 2012 but all the documents were lost upon change of office," Justice Ssekaana observed.

"The defendant (Mr Obadia), contends that the loan was paid, is unsatisfactory in many aspects, is materially inconsistent with the admitted documentary evidence and irreconcilable with the inherent probabilities of having cleared the loan obligation."