Wakilii

African Concrete Standard Industry Ltd v Viva General Merchandise Ltd (Civil Suit No. 1144 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 160 · 2025 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract and damages arising from alleged damage to goods during transportation
Decision
Suit dismissed with costs to the Defendant

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for breach of contract and damages arising from damaged concrete culverts during transportation. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove breach of contract on a balance of probabilities, finding that the plaintiff's own negligence in loading the goods likely caused the damage. The acknowledgment note signed by the defendant's illiterate driver was inadmissible under the Illiterates Protection Act. The defendant was not liable for the plaintiff's actual or anticipated losses.

Outcome

Suit dismissed with costs to the Defendant

Facts

On 19 July 2023, the plaintiff contracted with Sinohydro Corporation Limited to supply concrete culverts. On 21 July 2023, the plaintiff hired the defendant to transport 22 pieces of 1200mm concrete culverts to Kasese. The goods were loaded onto the defendant's truck driven by Sebalamu, who allegedly signed an acknowledgment of receipt. Upon delivery to Kasese, 12 of the 22 culverts were found damaged. The plaintiff's client rejected the damaged culverts and subsequently cancelled further orders. The plaintiff claimed UGX 7,800,000 for the damaged goods and UGX 100,000,000 for lost expected earnings. The defendant denied liability, contending that the driver was illiterate and coerced into signing documents he did not understand, that the culverts were poorly loaded by the plaintiff, and that the defendant exercised due diligence in transportation.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff has a cause of action against the Defendant?
  2. Whether there exists a breach of contract?
  3. Whether the Defendant is liable for loss of the Plaintiff's expected earnings?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • There was no breach of contract by the Defendant.
  • The Defendant is not liable for loss of the Plaintiff's expected earnings.
  • The suit is dismissed with costs to the Defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Cause of Action — Elements Required
A cause of action consists of three elements: the plaintiff enjoyed a right, the right was violated, and it was the defendant who violated the right. In determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, the court must look at the plaint and annexures with an assumption that all facts as pleaded are true.
Contract Law — Corporate Authority — General Manager's Authority to Bind Company
A general manager of a company may bind the company by contract under Section 50(1) of the Companies Act, which provides that a company may make a contract on behalf of the company by a person acting under its authority, express or implied. The position of general manager is an employable position not required to be listed under Company Form 20, which notifies only directors and company secretary.
Contract Law — Implied Terms — Duty of Care in Supply of Services
Under Section 18 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, there is an implied condition in a supply of services contract that where the supplier is acting in the ordinary course of business, the supplier will carry out the services with reasonable skill and care. This duty arises even in the absence of a specifically tailored written contract.
Evidence — Illiterates Protection Act — Requirements for Documents Signed by Illiterate Persons
Under the Illiterates Protection Act, a document signed by an illiterate person must be read over and explained to the illiterate, and must bear a certificate stating the writer's full name and address, that the document was written on the illiterate's instructions, and that it was read over and explained to the illiterate who appeared to understand it. Failure to comply with these mandatory requirements renders the document inadmissible. The Act is intended to protect illiterate persons from manipulation by literate persons.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Burden of Proof and Contributory Negligence
In civil cases, the burden of proof must be discharged by the plaintiff on a balance of probability. Where a plaintiff claims breach of a duty of care, the plaintiff must ensure that they have done all things possible to ensure they did not, by their own actions or omissions, act negligently or in a callous manner. A plaintiff's own negligence in the course of dealings may defeat a claim for breach of contract.
Contract Law — Damages — Entitlement to Compensation for Breach
Under Section 61(1) of the Contracts Act, where there is a breach of contract, the party who suffers the breach is entitled to receive from the party who breaches the contract compensation for any loss or damages caused. However, compensation cannot be awarded when there is no injury or when the injury is self-occurring due to the plaintiff's own negligence.
Civil Procedure — Counterclaims — Requirement for Substantive Remedies
There must be a counterclaim for any substantive remedy prayed for in a written statement of defence. A counterclaim being a suit in itself specifies the claim and gives the plaintiff the opportunity to respond to the defendant's claim. However, failure to file a counterclaim does not stop the defendant from pursuing its contract benefits in separate proceedings.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (17)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Bank of Uganda and Another v Kaweesi and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1047 of 2022)
  • Cooke V Gull LR 8 E.P 116
  • Kapeka Coffee Works Ltd v NPART (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • British Airways PLC v Fresh Grown Uganda Limited and another (Civil Suit No. 156 of 2003)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 514
  • Narottam Bhatia and Hemantini Bhatia v Boutique Shazzim Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2009)
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006)
  • Al-Kandari v J.R Brown and Co. [1988] QB 665
  • Tikens Francis and Another v Electronic Commission and 2 Others (High Court Election Petition No. 1 of 2012)
  • Kasaala Growers Co-operative Society v Kakooza and Another (Civil Application No. 19 of 2010)
  • Lotay v Starlip Insurance Brokers Ltd [2003] EA 551
  • Dawo and Others v Nairobi City Council [2001] 1EA 69
  • Jennings v Forestry Commission [2008] EWCA Civ 581
  • Miller versus Minister of Pensions
  • Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 873
  • DFCU (U) Ltd and 3 Others v MP Electronics Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 124 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

African Concrete Standard Industry Ltd v Viva General Merchandise Ltd (Civil Suit No. 1144 of 2023) [2025] UGCommC 160 (15 April 2025)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.