Principle(s):

The degree of relevance and admissibility of expert evidence.

Whether “negligence” can be imputed onto a bank where it was neither in issue nor raised in the pleadings?

What is the standard of proof in matters involving fraud?

Brief facts:

The appellant brought this appeal seeking orders that the appeal be allowed, the decision in Civil suit No. 181 of 2012 be set aside and costs of the appeal and in the trial, court be awarded to the appellant. The respondent filed civil suit No. 181 of 2012 against the appellant in the Chief Magistrates Court Nakawa for recovery Of Ugx 21,695,00/= allegedly being money drown by way of cheques from the respondent’s bank account without his knowledge, for general damages, interest and costs of the suit. The trial chief magistrate entered judgment and decree in favour of the Respondent thus the appeal.

Holding:

The Court held that the settled position of the law is that opinions of experts are not binding on courts of law and must be considered along with all the other available evidence. The court may choose to reject such evidence along with all the other available evidence.

The Court found that the learned trial magistrate rightly applied the test of negligence in line with the bank’s duty to act with care and diligence towards its customers.

The Court noted that although the learned trial magistrate did not specifically point out the standard of proof that he was applying, it is clear that he had in mind the fact that allegations of fraud by the appellant required a higher standard of proof.