Wakilii

Amazima (U) Ltd v Mahdi (Civil Suit No. 453 of 2016)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 45 · 2017 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract and special damages. Defendant failed to file defence; interlocutory judgment entered under Order 9 rules 5 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Matter proceeded to formal proof.
Decision
Final judgment entered for Plaintiff for unpaid balance of US$51,065 with 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

Where a defendant personally undertakes to pay for goods supplied to third parties and subsequently pays only a portion, leaving a balance unpaid, the supplier has a valid cause of action against the defendant for the unpaid balance. A plaintiff who proves supply of goods pursuant to the defendant's undertaking is entitled to final judgment for the liquidated demand and interest at a commercial rate on the unpaid sum.

Outcome

Final judgment entered for Plaintiff for unpaid balance of US$51,065 with interest and costs

Facts

The Plaintiff, a limited liability company, supplied goods worth US$120,000 to two companies in Juba, South Sudan (Bahgat Investment and Company Limited and Panorama Company Limited) at the Defendant's request. The Defendant personally undertook to pay for these goods. Tax invoices were drawn in the names of the recipient companies based on the Defendant's instructions. The Defendant paid US$68,935 but failed to pay the balance of US$51,065 despite repeated demands. The Plaintiff had a history of transacting with the Defendant on the same basis, with the Defendant ordering goods for onward transmission and personally guaranteeing payment. Following the Defendant's failure to file a defence, interlocutory judgment was entered on 25 July 2016.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff has any cause of action against the Defendant?
  2. Whether the Defendant breached and or failed to fully perform his part of the obligation under the contract?
  3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any remedies arising from such breach?

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant for the liquidated sum of US$51,065.
  • Interest awarded at the rate of 10% per annum on US$51,065 from March 2016 to the date of judgment.
  • Further interest awarded at the rate of 10% per annum on the decreed aggregate amount from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Personal Undertakings — Liability for Goods Ordered on Behalf of Third Parties
Where a party orders goods from a supplier for delivery to third parties and personally undertakes to pay for those goods, that party becomes contractually liable to the supplier regardless of whether the tax invoices are drawn in the names of the third-party recipients.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Elements
A contract is an agreement made with the free consent of parties with capacity to contract for lawful consideration, a lawful object, and with an intention to be legally bound. Failure to discharge contractual obligations through performance constitutes breach of contract.
Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Distinction Between Liquidated Demands and Pecuniary Damages
Where a claim includes both a liquidated demand and pecuniary damages and the defendant fails to file a defence, final judgment may be entered for the liquidated demand under Order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules without the need for assessment, while pecuniary damages must be assessed under Order 9 rule 8.
Contract Law — Remedies — Interest as Compensation for Deprivation of Money
Interest on money wrongfully withheld is awarded not as punishment but to achieve restitutio in integrum. Interest reflects either the profit the plaintiff might have made with use of the money or the loss suffered from deprivation, and should be set at a rate reflecting commercial prudence.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (16)

  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 514
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (CA No. 2 of 2001)
  • Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) 121 ER 762
  • Combe [1951] 2 KB 215
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 542 of 2010)
  • Nalwadda v Uganda AIDS Commission (HCCS No. 67 of 2011)
  • Bank of Uganda v Fred William Masaba & 5 Others (SCCA No. 3 of 1998)
  • Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd v Mardon [1976] 2 All ER
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Shim (SCCA No. 17 of 1992)
  • Kyoyeta v Mutebi (HCMA No. 781 of 2014)
  • Uganda Petroleum Co. Ltd v KCCA (HCCS No. 250 of 2015)
  • Uganda Baati v Patrick Kalema (HCCS No. 126 of 2010)
  • Abbey Panel & Sheet Metal Co Ltd v Barson Products [1947] 2 All ER 809
  • 3WM Uganda Ltd v Loadwell Freight Logistics Ltd and 2 Others (HCCS No. 299 of 2016)
  • Tate & Lyle Food and Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council [1981] 3 All ER 716
  • Riches v Westminster Bank Ltd [1947] 1 All ER 469

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Amazima (U) Ltd v Mahdi (Civil Suit No. 453 of 2016) [2017] UGCommC 45 (5 May 2017)
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.