The High Court has ordered a woman to pay more than Shs165.7 million to a bank after she used an impostor to pose as her husband and presented her husband’s land title as security for a Shs20 million overdraft facility.
In a judgment delivered on October 27, 2026, Justice Stephen Mubiru found Elizabeth Nabatanzi Lugudde liable for fraudulently misrepresenting to the bank that her brother-in-law, Moses Kamya, alias Samuel Lugudde Kanyike, was her husband, Samwiri Lugudde Kanyike Katwe.
The court established that Nabatanzi and the impostor obtained the overdraft facility on September 25, 2008, after presenting a certificate of title for land comprised in Kibuga Block 24 Plot 537, located in Lungujja and registered in her husband’s name.
The bank later discovered that the man presented as the registered proprietor was not Samwiri Lugudde Kanyike Katwe and that the genuine landowner had not consented to the mortgage.
Nabatanzi admitted obtaining the loan but argued that her husband had consented to the arrangement and personally handed her the land title to use as security.
However, Justice Mubiru rejected the defence, describing the claim that Nabatanzi had substituted another man to pose as her husband with her husband’s consent as an admission that established fraudulent misrepresentation.
The judge held that the bank had been deceived into believing that the person who appeared before it was the registered proprietor of the land and had consented to the mortgage transaction.
“Consent to impersonation does not negate fraud against the bank,” the court held.
The court further observed that using an impostor undermined the bank’s ability to verify whether the registered proprietor had authorised the mortgage.
Justice Mubiru also dismissed Nabatanzi’s argument that her acquittal in a criminal case absolved her of civil liability.
The judge explained that the standard of proof in criminal proceedings is beyond reasonable doubt, while fraud in civil proceedings must be established to a standard higher than a balance of probabilities but lower than beyond reasonable doubt.
“The evidentiary burden in the civil case is different and less onerous,” the judge held.
The court also found that Nabatanzi had defaulted on the overdraft facility, which was repayable within 60 days at an annual interest rate of 25 per cent.
Her explanation that the business truck had been involved in an accident along the Gulu Highway, disrupting operations and preventing her from repaying the loan, was also rejected.
Justice Mubiru held that business losses and the destruction of business assets are commercial risks borne by entrepreneurs and do not discharge an absolute contractual obligation to repay a debt.
Consequently, the court awarded the bank Shs83.832 million as the outstanding debt, together with interest at 25 per cent per annum from July 1, 2021, until payment in full.
The bank had also sought Shs97.406 million in special damages arising from litigation triggered by its attempts to enforce the disputed land security.
However, the court established that Shs71.859 million had been proved as expenses incurred by the bank in defending and settling lawsuits filed by the genuine landowner and the purchasers of the property at auction.
The judge found that the litigation was a direct and foreseeable consequence of Nabatanzi’s fraudulent conduct.
The bank had sold the land to Peter Ivor Page and Beatrice Loiza Nakaye Page for Shs26 million. However, the sale was challenged by Samwiri Lugudde Kanyike Katwe, who maintained that he had never consented to the mortgage.
The bank subsequently settled the disputes involving the registered owner and the auction purchasers, incurring additional legal and bailiff expenses.
Justice Mubiru also awarded Shs10 million in punitive or exemplary damages, attracting interest at six per cent per annum from October 27, 2026, until payment in full.
The defendant was further ordered to pay the costs of the suit.
In total, the court awarded the bank Shs165,691,392, excluding further accrued interest and legal costs.
The judge emphasised that anyone who obtains a financial facility under a valid agreement has a strict legal obligation to repay it, adding that commercial hardship does not, in itself, frustrate a loan agreement or relieve a borrower of the obligation to repay.
