IN HOT WATER! Former Namutumba Woman MP Loses Sh46M Tractor Appeal

JINJA — The High Court in Jinja has dismissed an appeal by former Namutumba District Woman Member of Parliament Mariam Naigaga, upholding a lower court ruling that ordered her to refund Shs46 million to businessman Javan Tindyebwa in a disputed tractor sale.

In a full and detailed judgment seen by this publication, dated August 24, 2026, High Court Judge Joanita Bushara upheld the decision of the Chief Magistrate’s Court, which found that Naigaga had breached a sale agreement after receiving the full purchase price but failing to deliver the tractor.

Adding more salt to injury, the court also ordered Naigaga to pay the costs of the appeal and those incurred in the lower court, dealing a further blow to her efforts to overturn the earlier ruling. The dispute arose from a written sale agreement dated January 6, 2021, under which Tindyebwa claimed to have purchased Naigaga’s tractor for Shs46 million, a sum he said he paid in full.

However, the tractor was never delivered, despite an alleged promise that it would be handed over within three weeks after repairs. Tindyebwa subsequently sued to recover his money, together with interest and legal costs, arguing that Naigaga had failed to refund the purchase price after the transaction fell through.

Naigaga disputed Tindyebwa’s account, maintaining that the transaction was not a genuine tractor sale but a Shs40 million loan she had obtained from the businessman during the 2021 election campaigns. She argued that the sale agreement had merely been intended as security for the loan and claimed that she had repaid Shs46 million, comprising the principal amount and Shs6 million in interest.

According to her defence, the repayments were made in two instalments of Shs36 million and Shs10 million in February and March 2021.

Dissatisfied with the Chief Magistrate’s decision delivered on May 29, 2024, Naigaga appealed to the High Court, challenging the validity of the Power of Attorney used in the proceedings, the evidence relied upon by the trial court and its finding that a valid contract existed between the parties. She also argued that the trial magistrate should have ordered specific performance of the agreement rather than recovery of the purchase price.

However, Justice Bushara dismissed all six grounds of appeal, finding no sufficient basis to interfere with the lower court’s decision.

In her judgment, Justice Bushara noted that Naigaga admitted signing the written sale agreement and receiving money from Tindyebwa. The judge observed that Naigaga had not produced a loan agreement or written acknowledgements from Tindyebwa confirming receipt of the alleged repayments. Her account of the repayments was also undermined by the banking evidence presented in court.

According to the judgment, Naigaga admitted that the bank withdrawal reflected in her evidence was Shs22 million, rather than the Shs36 million she claimed to have paid Tindyebwa on February 15, 2021. Her witness, identified as DW2, also admitted that he had not personally witnessed any money being handed over to Tindyebwa.

Justice Bushara found that these evidentiary weaknesses undermined Naigaga’s defence that she had fully repaid the alleged loan. In contrast, the judge held that the written sale agreement, testimony from a witness to its execution, and other documentary evidence supported Tindyebwa’s case.

Naigaga also challenged the validity of the Power of Attorney, arguing that it did not identify the judicial officer who witnessed it and that its terms allegedly authorised recovery of the tractor rather than the Shs46 million purchase price. Justice Bushara rejected the challenge, ruling that the omission did not invalidate the document.

The judge reasoned that the authority to institute and prosecute proceedings relating to the recovery of the identified tractor also covered a monetary claim arising from the same transaction.

The court further addressed Naigaga’s argument that the trial magistrate should have ordered specific performance rather than monetary compensation. Justice Bushara held that Tindyebwa’s claim was principally aimed at recovering the money he had paid after the tractor was not delivered. The monetary award, therefore, substantially corresponded with the remedy he had sought.

The judge concluded that Naigaga had failed to demonstrate that the lower court had misdirected itself or occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the lower court’s judgment and decree, and ordered Naigaga to pay the costs of the proceedings in both courts. The ruling leaves the lower court’s decision in favour of Tindyebwa intact, bringing Naigaga’s challenge to the judgment to an end at the High Court level.