Wakilii

Amanya v Mayanja (Civil Suit 579 of 2019)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 197 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of land sale agreement
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with refund of purchase price, general damages, interest, and costs

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 court held that the defendant vendor breached a land sale agreement by failing to subdivide and transfer 200 acres to the plaintiff purchaser despite receiving UGX 287,000,000. The defendant was ordered to refund the full purchase price with interest at 10% per annum from the date of final payment until payment in full, plus general damages of UGX 20,000,000 with interest from judgment.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with refund of purchase price, general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

On 30 September 2012, the plaintiff entered into a purchase agreement with the defendant to buy 200 acres of land comprised in LRV 576 Folio 25 Plot 3 Block 538, Kyantaba Estate, for UGX 340,000,000. The plaintiff paid UGX 150,000,000 upon execution, UGX 100,000,000 on 28 November 2012, and UGX 37,000,000 on 14 February 2013, totaling UGX 287,000,000 with a balance of UGX 53,000,000 remaining. The agreement required the defendant to subdivide the 200 acres from the larger 640-acre parcel within 60 days. Despite the plaintiff's payments and numerous reminders, the defendant failed to subdivide the land or deliver vacant possession. The defendant did not file a defence or enter appearance, resulting in an exparte judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant breached the sale agreement dated 30th September, 2012?
  2. What are the remedies available?

Orders

  • Plaintiff is entitled to a refund of UGX 287,000,000 (Two Hundred Eighty-Seven Million Shillings) which amount constitutes the sum of money received by the Defendant in respect of the land sale agreement dated 30th September, 2012 with an interest rate of 10% per annum from 14th February 2013 until payment in full.
  • UGX 20,000,000 awarded as General Damages.
  • Interest on general damages at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Definition and Elements
Breach of contract refers to a situation where one party to a contract fails to carry out a term of the said contract. It occurs when a party neglects, refuses or fails to perform any part of its bargain or any term of the contract, written or oral, without a legitimate legal excuse.
Contract Law — Sale of Land — Vendor's Obligation to Subdivide and Transfer
Where a land sale agreement stipulates that the vendor shall subdivide a specified portion of land within a specified timeframe, the vendor's failure to perform this obligation despite receiving substantial payment constitutes breach of contract.
Contract Law — Remedies for Breach — Contractual Refund Clause
Where a land sale agreement contains an express clause providing for refund of consideration to the purchaser in the event of default by the vendor, the purchaser is entitled to enforce that refund clause upon the vendor's breach.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Purpose and Assessment
General damages are awarded at the discretion of the court and the purpose is to restore the aggrieved person to the position they would have been in had the breach or wrong not occurred.
Damages & Quantum — Interest on Monetary Awards — Statutory Basis
Under section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, where the decree is for payment of money, the court may order interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable on the principal sum adjudged from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, with further interest from the date of the decree to the date of payment.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Mogas (U) Ltd v Benzina (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 88 of 2013)
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 542 of 2006)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (S.C. Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Amanya_v_Mayanja_(Civil_Suit_579_of_2019)_[2024]_UGHCLD_197_(31_July_2024)
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.