The High Court Commercial Division has ordered two businessmen to pay Over Shs500 million to Eco Bank.
This is after it was satisfied with the evidence tabled in a court against Kalsons Agrovert Concern LTD, which is owned by Patrick Kaliisa and Henry Kaliisa.
According to court documents, Eco Bank stated that on November 25, 2009, it extended a short term loan facility to Agrovert Concern LTD of Shs487.5 million and it was agreed that the loan be repaid by the December 30, 2009 at the interest rate of 24% per annum.
Patrick and Henry guaranteed the payment of all sums in the terms of the facilities owing to the plaintiff together with interest, commissions charges, costs and expenses until the date of full repayment.
But when Agrovert Concern LTD continually defaulted on agreed timelines for the payment of the loan facility and interest accruing and despite repeated reminders and a formal demand, it failed to regularize the arrears on the loan facility.
Patrick and Henry who were the guarantors also defaulted on payment as agreed in the personal guarantee agreement executed in favour of the plaintiff.
This prompted Eco Bank to run to court, demanding for Shs517.6 million being an accrued principle amount and interest.
In their response, the duo said Eco Bank’s actions were illegal, fraudulent and intended to unjustly enrich themselves which is not permissible in law.
In his ruling, Deputy Head judge High Court – Commercial Division, said it is clear in the instant case that the plaintiff (Eco Bank) made a claim basing on a loan facility advanced to the defendants.
“They attached a copy of an offer letter; the respective guarantees letters, repayment schedules and a formal demand to their plaint.”
On the other hand, the Kaliisa brothers denied each claim and never responded to it in specific terms as required by the law.
“The defendants (Kaliisa brothers) in their respective defences merely averred illegality and fraud and intended attempt by the plaintiff to enrich themselves. I have not seen any substantial defence or any intelligible response to the claim. Consequently, I find that the defence did not raise a reasonable answer to the applicant’s claim and thus offended the provisions of O 6.r 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is accordingly struck out.
“In the result judgment is hereby entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for the liquidated sum of Shs517,648,784,35 being the accrued principal amount and interest owing from the loan facility.”
