Wakilii

Among v Trucks International Ltd (Civil Suit No. 280 of 2010)

High Court · [2014] UGCOMMC 41 · 2014 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 arising from hire of motor vehicle
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages, interest and costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations fading — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 held that the defendant breached the hire contract by failing to pay the plaintiff UGX 78,568,400 for hire of a motor vehicle over two 365-day periods. The court rejected the defendant's argument that payment should await tracing of lost invoices, holding that invoices were relevant only for the defendant's separate contract with the Ministry of Defence. The court awarded special damages of UGX 78,568,400, general damages of UGX 15,000,000 for the long delay in payment, and interest from 2009 at 18% per annum.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages, interest and costs

Facts

The plaintiff hired her Toyota Hilux pickup registration number UAF 657J to the defendant at UGX 100,000 per day for two consecutive periods of 365 days each (14 October 2004 to 13 October 2005, and 14 October 2005 to 13 October 2006), totalling UGX 73,000,000. The defendant subcontracted the vehicle to the Ministry of Defence/UPDF. The plaintiff delivered the vehicle and it worked for the entire contract periods. The defendant failed to pay despite repeated demands. On 3 February 2009, the defendant acknowledged indebtedness of UGX 78,568,400 in a letter to the Permanent Secretary Ministry of Defence requesting direct payment to the plaintiff. The Ministry of Defence declined to pay the plaintiff as she was not a party to their contract with the defendant. The defendant had received substantial payments from the Ministry of Defence totalling over UGX 580 million but did not remit payment to the plaintiff.

Issues

  1. Whether or not there was breach of contract by the Defendant?
  2. If so, what are the remedies available?

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff.
  • Defendant liable for breach of contract.
  • Special damages awarded: UGX 78,568,400.
  • General damages awarded: UGX 15,000,000.
  • Interest on special damages at 18% per annum from March 2009 to date of filing suit (26 July 2010).
  • Interest on special damages at 18% per annum from date of filing suit to date of judgment.
  • Interest on the aggregate sum of special damages, general damages and accrued interest at 14% per annum from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Payment Obligations — Effect of Subcontracting
A hirer who subcontracts a hired asset to a third party remains liable to the original owner for payment under the primary hire agreement. The hirer cannot transfer its payment obligation to the third party in a manner that would discharge its liability to the owner, particularly where the third party has not consented to assume that obligation.
Contract Law — Privity of Contract — Third Party Rights
The doctrine of privity of contract provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations on a person who is not a party to the contract. A stranger to a contract cannot take advantage of the provisions of the contract even where its provisions were intended to benefit him. Consequently, an agreement between a hirer and the original owner purporting to bind a government department to pay the owner directly is not enforceable against the government department where that department is not a party to the agreement and the Attorney General has not provided legal advice as required by article 119(5) of the Constitution.
Constitutional Law — Government Contracts — Attorney General's Legal Advice — Article 119(5)
Article 119(5) of the Constitution provides that no agreement, contract, treaty or convention to which the government is a party or in respect of which the government has an interest shall be concluded without the legal advice from the Attorney General. A contract purporting to bind a government department that was not submitted to the Attorney General for legal advice contravenes the Constitution and is null and void to the extent of the contradiction pursuant to article 2 of the Constitution.
Contract Law — Acknowledgement of Debt — Revival of Cause of Action — Limitation
Section 22(4) of the Limitation Act provides that where any right of action has accrued to recover any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim and the person liable or accountable acknowledges the claim or makes payment in respect thereof, the right shall be deemed to have accrued on and not before the date of the acknowledgement or the last payment. Section 23 requires the acknowledgement to be in writing and signed by the person making it. A written acknowledgement of indebtedness signed under seal by a defendant company revives the cause of action and time runs afresh from the date of acknowledgement.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Defence Based on Missing Invoices
Where a hire contract stipulates a daily hire charge and the period of hire is expressly agreed, liability for payment does not depend on the production of invoices. Missing invoices relevant to a separate subcontracting arrangement between the hirer and a third party cannot constitute a defence to the hirer's liability to pay the owner. The obligation to produce invoices for the subcontract is the sole responsibility of the hirer based on that separate contractual relationship.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Delay in Payment — Breach of Contract
Where a plaintiff has been kept out of money owed under a contract for an uncommonly long period exceeding seven years, general damages are recoverable in addition to special damages representing the principal debt and interest thereon. It is sufficient for the plaintiff to assert that such damage has been suffered, as general damages are presumed to be the natural or probable consequence of the breach.
Commercial Law — Value Added Tax — Liability to Pay VAT — Hire Contracts
Under section 5(a) of the Value Added Tax Act, in the case of a taxable supply, the tax payable shall be paid by the taxable person making the supply. Where a hire contract provides that all monies payable are inclusive of VAT, the entire amount is payable and includes VAT. The consumer of services cannot deduct VAT from the amount payable. The obligation to pay VAT to the Uganda Revenue Authority is on the supplier of services and does not reduce the liability of the consumer to pay the full contract price.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (6)

  • Nsimbe Holdings Ltd v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2006)
  • Dr Vincent Karuhanga t/a Friends Polyclinic v National Insurance Corporation (High Court Civil Suit No. 617 of 2002)
  • Jones v Bellegrove Properties Ltd [1949] 2 All ER 198
  • Dungate v Dungate [1965] 3 All ER 393
  • Dr G.W. Otim-Nape v All Port Freight Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 1111 of 1996)
  • Dharamshi v Karsan [1974] 1 EA 41

Cases citing this judgment (3)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Among v Trucks International Ltd (Civil Suit No. 280 of 2010) [2014] UGCommC 41 (25 April 2014)
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.