The Court of Appeal has upheld a finding that Uganda Development Bank Limited (UDB) breached a financing agreement with agro-processing firm Afro-Kai Ltd, affirming the bank’s liability for withdrawing a loan facility without justification—while reducing the damages payable to UGX 50 million.
In a judgment delivered in April 2026, the appellate court dismissed most of UDB’s appeal against a 2016 High Court decision, which had found the development finance institution liable for breach of contract after failing to disburse a loan intended to support Afro-Kai’s expansion.
A UGX 4.7 Billion Financing Deal Unravels
The dispute traces back to August 2012, when Afro-Kai Ltd applied to UDB for a credit facility of approximately UGX 4.7 billion to modernize and scale its grain processing and trading operations. The bank’s board approved the request, restructuring it into a term loan of UGX 3.73 billion and a working capital component of UGX 660 million.
Afro-Kai proceeded to pay the required application and appraisal fees and accepted the offer. However, the term loan component was subject to a key condition: approval of refinancing under the Bank of Uganda’s Agricultural Credit Facility (ACF).
Months later, in April 2013, UDB informed Afro-Kai that it would not proceed with the term loan, citing the absence of approval from the central bank. The offer was subsequently revoked, prompting Afro-Kai to sue for breach of contract.
High Court Ruling and Appeal
The High Court ruled in favour of Afro-Kai, holding that a binding contract existed and that UDB’s withdrawal constituted a breach. The court awarded UGX 11.3 million in special damages—covering costs incurred by Afro-Kai—and UGX 150 million in general damages for inconvenience and loss of opportunity.
UDB challenged the ruling, arguing that no binding contract existed due to the conditional nature of the offer and that the loan could not be disbursed without Bank of Uganda’s approval. The bank also maintained that Afro-Kai had failed to meet certain conditions precedent, including providing adequate security.
Court of Appeal: Contract Was Binding
In its decision, the Court of Appeal rejected UDB’s arguments, affirming that a contract had indeed been formed between the parties. The judges emphasized that the conduct of both UDB and Afro-Kai—particularly the payment of fees, acceptance of the offer, and ongoing engagement with Bank of Uganda—demonstrated a clear intention to be bound.
The court clarified that the conditions attached to the loan were not prerequisites for the existence of a contract, but rather obligations to be fulfilled during its performance. As such, the agreement could not be treated as merely tentative or incomplete.
Withdrawal Deemed Unjustified
A central issue in the appeal was whether Bank of Uganda had rejected UDB’s refinancing application. The Court of Appeal found that no formal rejection had been made. Instead, the central bank had raised concerns and left the application open for further clarification or withdrawal.
The court held that UDB prematurely withdrew the application before a final determination could be reached. By doing so, the bank effectively prevented the fulfillment of the very condition it relied on to justify cancelling the loan.
Related
Bank of Uganda kicks off domestic gold purchase from licensed miners in three-year pilot programme“The revocation of the conditional offer was not justified and amounted to breach of contract,” the court ruled, noting that UDB could not rely on a condition whose failure it had itself caused.
Damages Reduced to UGX 50 Million
While the appellate court upheld the award of special damages, it found the UGX 150 million in general damages to be excessive.
The judges noted that the inconvenience suffered by Afro-Kai stemmed largely from delayed communication and uncertainty over a relatively short period—approximately four months. They also pointed out that the company’s expectation of securing the loan remained contingent on meeting outstanding conditions.
Taking these factors into account, the court reduced the general damages award to UGX 50 million, describing it as a more proportionate reflection of the inconvenience caused.
Afro-Kai was also awarded 50% of the costs of the appeal, reinforcing its status as the substantially successful party.
Implications for Banking and Commercial Practice
The ruling sends a clear signal to financial institutions regarding the legal risks associated with conditional lending arrangements. It underscores that conditional offers—particularly where parties have acted upon them—can give rise to binding contractual obligations.
For development finance institutions like UDB, which often operate within layered approval frameworks involving third parties such as central banks, the judgment highlights the importance of managing conditions transparently and avoiding premature withdrawal decisions.
Legal experts say the decision reinforces a key principle in contract law: a party cannot rely on the non-fulfillment of a condition where its own actions contributed to that outcome.
For businesses, the ruling offers reassurance that courts will protect legitimate commercial expectations where significant steps have been taken in reliance on financing commitments.
As Uganda continues to prioritize industrialization and value addition in sectors such as agriculture, the case serves as a reminder that the integrity of financing processes is critical—not only for institutional credibility, but also for sustaining investor confidence in the country’s development finance ecosystem.
