On 17 th July 2026, the Commercial Division of the High Court dismissed the claim against Absa Bank Uganda Limited in Musa Nsubuga & Anthony Tenywa v. Absa Bank Uganda Limited & Isaac Lukakamwa, Civil Suit No. 716 of 2020. Hon. Lady Justice Patience T.E. Rubagumya drew a clear line between money allegedly handed to a bank employee and money actually received by the bank, a useful reminder that vicarious liability and the banker-customer relationship do not turn every interaction with staff into a bank transaction. AF Mpanga Advocates acted for Absa.

The Plaintiffs, both Absa account holders, alleged that they were approached by Isaac Lukakamwa, an enterprise banker at the Bank, with an offer that should have set off alarms on its own: a fixed deposit paying 20% per month in late 2019. They claimed Lukakamwa walked them through application forms, some bearing the Bank’s stamp, and that the two men handed him cash personally: UGX 120 million from Nsubuga in four instalments between October and November 2019, and UGX 40 million from Tenywa. However, no acknowledgement of receipt of funds was issued, no account was ever opened, and no interest was ever paid.

By February 2020, the two men grew suspicious, summoned Lukakamwa to their lawyers’ chambers, where he signed minutes acknowledging receipt of the UGX 160 million and promised to repay it in instalments. He resigned two days later and was issued a certificate of service having satisfied the exit protocols of the Bank. In May 2020, the two men served a demand on the Bank for the full sum and when Absa did not pay after demand, the Plaintiffs sued.

Why the claim failed

  • No proof of receipt by the Bank. Nsubuga could not produce a deposit slip, receipt, or any other document showing that the Bank had received a shilling of the sums in question. His Centenary Bank statement showed withdrawals on the relevant dates, and a witness admitted lending him part of the money, but, as the Court pointed out, that evidence only proved that he had access to funds; it did not prove that Absa received them. The Court held that payment is established by proof of receipt by the intended payee, not merely by evidence that funds left the payer’s account. Absa’s own records showed no corresponding deposits on any of the dates alleged, and that evidence was not contested.
  • The Form contradicted the story. Court examined the very deposit form Nsubuga had signed. The Form set out exactly how deposits were to be made: through a designated teller, by transfer, by POS, or by ATM and not by handing cash to a bank employee. Nsubuga admitted under cross-examination that he had read and understood this, and that Lukakamwa was not authorised to take deposits from customers. He paid him in cash anyway. Even Nsubuga’s own witness accepted that the fixed deposit product was supposed to work by crediting an account and converting the balance into a term deposit, not by passing banknotes to an individual. Against that background, the Court found it difficult to accept that a man with a master’s degree would part with UGX 120 million without obtaining even a receipt.
  • The chambers acknowledgement couldn’t bind the Bank. No one from Absa was present when it was signed, it misstated the amount, and it didn’t apportion the sum between the two Plaintiffs.
  • Vicarious liability never arose. Liability follows only once the underlying act is proven. The law makes an employer liable for what an employee does in the course of his employment. Since no one showed Lukakamwa actually received the money, the question of whether he received it “in the course employment” didn’t arise.
  • Peripheral complaints didn’t hold up. The claim that Absa protected Lukakamwa from discipline ignored the fact that Lukakamwa had already resigned before any complaint reached Absa, and the CCTV footage sought had been overwritten under the bank’s routine 90-day retention policy.

Why it matters

  • For banks: the fiduciary duty they owe their customers does not automatically translate into strict liability for every claim a customer brings. The duty attaches to money the bank actually receives and holds, not to whatever a customer does with an employee outside the bank’s own channels, particularly where the customer knows the correct channel.
  • For customers: trust in a familiar face is no substitute for using the bank’s official processes. A good relationship with a bank employee will not help a customer recover money that the employee took outside the bank’s books.
  • For litigators: proving a client parted with money is not the same as proving the other side received it. The burden sits squarely with the Plaintiff to trace the payment to its destination, and gaps in that chain of proof, however sympathetic the underlying story, will not be filled by inference or by the defendant’s silence.

AF Mpanga Advocates’ team on this matter: Frederick Joshua Mpanga (Partner), Yusuf Mawanda (Senior Associate), Anne Ruth Nakiwala (Associate), and Raymond Aine (Junior Associate).

Authored by: Frederick Joshua Mpanga (Partner), Anne Ruth Nakiwala (Associate) and Raymond Aine (Junior Associate).