Brothers clash over Shs230m soft loan 

Two cousins, Mr Joseph Arinaitwe and Mr Ronald Ndyareeba, are battling in court after the former extended a soft loan of Shs257 million to the latter but the repayment schedule was not honoured. Photo/courtesy

What you need to know:

  • The documents add that Mr Ndyareeba was only able to remit Shs27m, leaving a balance of Shs230m, which has become the basis of the legal dispute.

Two cousins, Mr Joseph Arinaitwe and Mr Ronald Ndyareeba, are battling in court after the former extended a soft loan of Shs257 million to the latter but the repayment schedule was not honoured.
Court documents show that the loan was extended between 2017 and 2018 and was meant to boost Mr Ndyareeba’s business.

The documents add that Mr Ndyareeba was only able to remit Shs27m, leaving a balance of Shs230m, which has become the basis of the legal dispute.
Mr Ndyareeba filed an application before the Commercial Court, seeking its protection from not remitting the remaining loan balance to his brother.
He stated that the said outstanding  balance was not a liquidated sum capable of being recovered under summary procedure.

He also claimed that his brother, Arinaitwe, was not licensed to extend to him the said loan, so he does not have the capacity to force him to pay back.
But in his ruling, Justice Boniface Wamala, observed that he has not seen any denial by Mr Ndyareeba of not having obtained a Shs257m loan from his brother and also that he had not seen any denial that he had made a part payment of Shs27m.
“The matters raised by the applicant (Mr Ndyareeba) appear to be based on technical denials, one that the respondent (Mr Arinaitwe) had no legal authority to lend any money to the applicant,” Justice Wamala ruled on January 5.

“On the facts before me, there is no evidence that the respondent (Mr Arinaitwe) was engaged in the business of money lending without a licence. There is evidence that the transaction in issue was a private arrangement between persons known to each other. There is nothing illegal about such arrangement. More importantly, where there is evidence that the money was actually advanced by the respondent and the applicant received it.

Questions on the respondent’s capacity to lend cannot constitute a reasonable or bona fide ground of defence to an action seeking recovery of such borrowed funds. As such, this claim by the applicant (Mr Ndyareeba) discloses no triable issue of fact or law.” the judge added.
To that effect, the judge ordered Mr Ndyareeba to pay the outstanding to his brother and the costs of the court matter.