Wakilii

Ampumuza Ritah v Edwin Atukunda Beekunda (Civil Suit 556 of 2016)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 279 · 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 with judgment entered in default after interlocutory judgment
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with payment of contract price, general damages, interest and costs ordered against 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 court found that a valid written contract existed for the sale of tea seedlings for UGX 100,000,000. The defendant breached the contract by issuing a dishonoured cheque, and a cheque is to be treated as cash. The plaintiff was awarded the contract price of UGX 100,000,000, general damages of UGX 10,000,000 for inconvenience and loss of business, interest at 6% from judgment until payment, and costs of the suit.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with payment of contract price, general damages, interest and costs ordered against the defendant

Facts

On 15 October 2015, the plaintiff sold over 700,000 tea seedlings from her nursery bed to the defendant for UGX 100,000,000. The parties executed a written sale agreement. The plaintiff delivered the seedlings immediately upon execution of the agreement, as evidenced by the defendant's signature acknowledging receipt. Payment was to be made by post-dated cheque dated 30 December 2015. The defendant issued cheque No. 000064 for UGX 100,000,000 drawn on Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited in favour of the plaintiff. When presented, the cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds. The defendant was served through substituted service but never entered appearance. An interlocutory judgment was entered on 3 October 2016 and the matter proceeded to formal proof.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a valid contract between the plaintiff and the defendant
  2. Whether there was a breach of contract by the defendant
  3. What remedies are available to the plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff
  • Defendant to pay the contract price of UGX 100,000,000
  • Defendant to pay general damages of UGX 10,000,000
  • Interest awarded at court rate of 6% on the contract sum from date of judgment until payment in full
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation — Essential Elements — Valid Contract
A valid contract under Section 10(1) of the Contract Act is an agreement made with the free consent of parties with capacity to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, with the intention to be legally bound. A contract may be oral or written or partly oral and partly written or may be implied from the conduct of the parties.
Contract Law — Breach — Definition and Elements
Breach of contract is a violation of a contractual obligation by failing to perform one's own promise, by repudiating it, or by interfering with another party's performance.
Banking & Finance — Cheques — Dishonoured Cheques — Treatment as Cash
A cheque is to be treated as cash, and unless exceptional grounds are shown, when a cheque is dishonoured the holder is entitled to judgment. There is a presumption that the drawer of a dishonoured cheque knew or did not care whether it would be dishonoured.
Banking & Finance — Cheques — Promise to Pay — Liability of Drawer
A cheque constitutes a promise to pay and the drawer becomes liable to make good the amount written on the cheque.
Damages & Quantum — Breach of Contract — Measure of Damages — Restitutionary Principle
In a claim for damages for breach of contract, the party who is not guilty of the breach is to be placed financially in the position in which they would have been if the contract had not been broken and if they had been allowed to carry out their part of the contract.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment — Court's Discretion
General damages in breach of contract are what a court may award when the court cannot point out any measure by which they are to be assessed, except in the opinion and judgment of a reasonable person. The court may exercise discretion to award damages which it deems fit even where the plaintiff has not specified the quantum.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Judgment — Effect — Liability Settled
Once an interlocutory judgment has been entered, the issue of liability is settled and cannot be reopened at the stage of formal proof or assessment of damages.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (7)

  • Bhaser Kotecha v Adam Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Maersk Uganda Limited v First Merchant International Ltd (HCCS No. 743 of 2009)
  • Haji Asumani Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 7 of 1995)
  • Sembule Investments Ltd v Uganda Baati Ltd (MA 664 of 2009)
  • Vambeco Enterprises Ltd v Vienna Academy Ltd (HCCS No. 419 of 2005)
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 234 of 2017)
  • Rwantale v Rwabutoga (1988-1990) HCB 100

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ampumuza Ritah v Edwin Atukunda Beekunda (Civil Suit 556 of 2016) [2017] UGCommC 279 (30 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.