High Court cancels sh15m award against Pearl Bank
Justice Kinobe ruled that the bank could not reasonably have foreseen that the transactions were irregular, particularly because the account holder used the name “Barigye William” on the withdrawal slips.
The judge said the bank’s relationship was with the account holder, Baligye, who also used the name Barigye interchangeably.
KAMPALA - The High Court in Kampala has overturned a Sh15.3m award against Pearl Bank, formerly known as PostBank Uganda Limited, ruling that the bank was not liable for money deposited on the account of a person with a similar name to the intended beneficiary.
Justice Simon Peter Kinobe of the High Court Civil Division set aside the judgment and orders of the Mengo Chief Magistrate’s Court, which had ordered Pearl Bank to refund sh15,362,412 to William Barigye.
The magistrate had also awarded Barigye sh10m in general damages, sh5m in exemplary damages and costs of the suit.
Barigye had sued Pearl Bank, claiming that money from the Directorate of Citizenship and Immigration Control, including his salary and facilitation, had been mistakenly deposited on the account of another person, William Baligye.
He claimed that between December 2012 and June 2014, money amounting to sh15,362,412 meant for him was continuously remitted to the account of Baligye, which was held with the then PostBank, and withdrawn.
Barigye, an employee of the Directorate of Citizenship and Immigration Control in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, said he had never operated an account with PostBank and used a Centenary Bank account to receive his salary and other emoluments.
The matter came before the High Court after Pearl Bank, formerly PostBank, appealed against the decision of the chief magistrate, arguing that the trial court had wrongly found it negligent and liable to pay exemplary damages.
In his judgment delivered on July 27, 2026, Justice Kinobe held that Barigye did not have an account with PostBank and, therefore, had no relationship with the bank.
The judge said the bank’s relationship was with the account holder, Baligye, who also used the name Barigye interchangeably.
Justice Kinobe noted that the account holder had a Uganda Police Force warrant card in the name “Barigye William” and also wrote the same name on withdrawal slips.
The court heard that PostBank received electronic funds transfers from the Bank of Uganda for the Ministry of Internal Affairs, including payments directed to account number 001030017010586, held in the name of Barigye William.
The bank’s back-office manager, Norah Nagayi, testified that the bank credited the account in accordance with the instructions it received.
She also told court that the bank did not receive any complaint from Barigye or his employer between December 2008 and June 2014 concerning the alleged anomaly.
Justice Kinobe ruled that the bank could not reasonably have foreseen that the transactions were irregular, particularly because the account holder used the name “Barigye William” on the withdrawal slips.
“It is clear from the foregoing that Barigye, the plaintiff, did not hold any account with Post Bank and so he had no relationship with the bank,” the judge ruled.
The judge added that there was no relationship of proximity between Barigye and the bank, noting that PostBank owed a duty to release the money to its account holder upon request.
He said the fact that the anomaly was raised in August 2014, long after the money had been withdrawn, meant that the bank could not be held liable for negligence.
Justice Kinobe said had the trial magistrate properly considered the evidence and the letter from the Director of Citizenship and Immigration Control, she would not have found PostBank liable.
He consequently allowed the appeal and set aside the chief magistrate’s judgment and all the orders issued on April 28, 2017.
He ordered that each party bears its own costs of the appeal.