I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel, the law, and the authorities referred to. It is not disputed that
the applicant has been denied the use of his money since 18/12/2007 when he retired. He is, therefore, entitled to interest. The issue is the rate at which
the interest should be fixed.
The Plaintiff did not have his money at the due date. Any interest payable to him may be regarded either as representing the profit he might have made if he had had the use of the money, or conversely, the loss he suffered because he had not that use. The general idea is that he is entitled
to compensation for that deprivation. Interest in such circumstances is paid as a compensation for the deprivation of money that
was due. (See Ruth Aliu and 126 others Vs Attorney General HCCS No. 1100 of 1998).
The plaintiff prayed for 35% interest which he stated to be the commercial interest. Considering the delay the plaintiff has undergone without his benefits, and the points raised in mitigation by counsel for the defendant, I regard interest of 25% per annum as reasonable under the circumstances. I, therefore, do award interest of 25% per annum to be paid on the plaintiff’s claim from the date the monies became due till payment in full.
Judgment read by Her Worship, Kabanda E. in the presence of:
Mr. Majjellan Kazibwe Counsel for Plaintiff
Mr. Kabombo Counsel for Defendant