The Commercial Division of the High Court in Kampala has ordered the consolidation of three high-stakes civil suits filed against Absa Bank (U) Ltd and the Bank of Uganda, in a ruling that could shape the trajectory of a multi-million shilling banking dispute involving alleged unauthorized account debits.
In a decision delivered on March 19, 2026, Justice Patience T.E. Rubagumya directed that Civil Suits No. 1724, 1725, and 1726 of 2023 be merged and heard as one, citing substantial overlap in facts, legal questions, and intended evidence.
Background of the Dispute
The consolidated suits were filed by Bulamu Mixed Farm Products Ltd, Alnet Top Notch Point Ltd, and businessman Aloysious Lubega, all of whom accuse Absa Bank and the central bank of breaching statutory and fiduciary duties.
At the heart of the dispute are claims that Absa made unauthorized, unlawful, and irregular debits from the plaintiffs’ accounts held at its Hannington Road branch in Kampala between July 1, 2018, and July 1, 2019.
According to court records, the plaintiffs allege that:
- Bulamu Mixed Farm Products Ltd lost UGX 299.1 million
- Alnet Top Notch Point Ltd lost UGX 298.9 million
- Aloysious Lubega lost UGX 247.2 million
This brings the total disputed sum to approximately UGX 845 million.
The plaintiffs further contend that the Bank of Uganda failed in its supervisory role over Absa, allowing the alleged irregularities to occur unchecked.
Audit Trail and Key Evidence
Central to the claims is an audit conducted by BOL & Company Certified Public Accountants, commissioned by Lubega in both his personal capacity and as a director of the two companies.
The audit reportedly uncovered a pattern of unexplained debits across the three accounts, prompting complaints to both Absa and the central bank. The plaintiffs argue that these complaints were ignored, forcing them to seek judicial redress.
Notably, all three suits rely on:
- The same audit report
- The same key witnesses, including the auditor and Lubega
- Similar documentary evidence, including bank statements and correspondence
Application for Consolidation
Absa Bank and the Bank of Uganda applied to have the three cases consolidated, arguing that separate trials would:
- Lead to duplication of evidence
- Require repetitive witness testimony
- Risk conflicting judgments on similar issues
They maintained that the claims arise from a common series of transactions and involve nearly identical legal questions, including whether the debits were lawful and whether regulatory oversight was properly exercised.
Opposition by Plaintiffs
The plaintiffs opposed the application, insisting that:
- Each case involves distinct accounts and transactions
- The issues are not identical across the suits
- One of the suits raises unique legal questions, including alleged abuse of court process
They further argued that consolidation would unfairly merge separate banking relationships and delay cases that were already ready for hearing.
Court’s Determination
In her ruling, Justice Rubagumya dismissed the plaintiffs’ objections, finding that the similarities between the cases outweighed their differences.
The court held that:
- The suits raise common questions of law and fact, particularly regarding alleged unauthorized debits and breach of banking duties
- The claims stem from a similar series of transactions occurring within the same timeframe
- The parties intend to rely on identical witnesses and evidence
“The reliefs arise from similar facts and transactions… and I see no prejudice against the Respondents from the consolidation,” the judge ruled.
She emphasized that consolidation would promote judicial efficiency, reduce costs, and ensure consistent findings.
Final Orders
The court accordingly ordered that:
- The three civil suits be consolidated into a single proceeding
- Costs of the application be determined in the main suit
Implications
The ruling sets the stage for a single, comprehensive trial that will determine liability across all three claims simultaneously. Legal observers say the case could have significant implications for:
- Banking accountability in Uganda
- The scope of central bank supervisory responsibility
- Standards governing banker-customer relationships
With nearly UGX 1 billion at stake and serious allegations of systemic irregularities, the consolidated case is expected to draw close scrutiny as it proceeds to full hearing.
