Court Orders KCB To Avail Key Documents In Case Filed By Tirupati

The high court (civil division) of Kampala has in a ruling asked KCB Bank (respondents) to provide key documents in a case versus Tirupati Development Ltd (applicants). 

This ruling of miscellaneous application No 0707 of 2022 arises from civil suit No. 15 of 2022. The suit was premised on a loan facility that the applicant obtained from the respondents wherein the plaintiff challenges the breach of fiduciary duty by the respondents.

The applicant brought the current application seeking an order for discovery and production of various documents in the possession of the respondents to support their defenses.

The documents sought by the applicant include those related to the loan transaction and loan account origination, negotiation, approval, processing, key facts documents, management, and closure. Specifically, the applicant requested documents pertaining to the loan accounts, various bank accounts in the applicant’s name, fraud detection policies, investment origination and management, IT policies, cyber security, digital forensics, and money laundering policies since the enactment of the Anti Money Laundering Act in 2013.

"Under Order 10 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules, any party may, without filing any affidavit, apply to court for an order directing any other party to make discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been in his or her possession or power, relating to any matter in question in the suit," Justice Sekaana writes in his ruling.

The application was supported by an affidavit from Mrs. Kruti Barot, the Managing Director of Tirupati Development (U) Ltd.

Barot, in the main suit, alleges several causes of action against the respondents and these include: negligence, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of statutory duty, money laundering and fraud.

The applicant also contests the manner in which the loan facilities were managed specifically the respondent’s action of creating or opening and operating various accounts in the names of the applicant, without her knowledge or consent and in contravention of the laws in place in Uganda.

The applicant also contended that the documents sought are relevant to the head suit pending.  

And in his ruling, Justice Sekaana ruled that application was successful to the extent that the respondent should avail the requested for documents to the applicant without fail andbalso meet the costs.