Wakilii

Ariam Properties Limited v Royal Transit Limited (Civil Suit 31 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 283 · 2023 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of sale agreement and recovery of unpaid purchase price
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with recovery of unpaid purchase price, general damages, interest, and costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (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 4 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 4 citing cases on record, 4 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

Held that the defendant breached the sale agreement by failing to pay the balance of the purchase price as agreed. The plaintiff was awarded USD 63,600 being the unpaid balance, general damages of UGX 50,000,000, and interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing. The court declined to award the contractual interest of 5% per month, finding it unconscionable under section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Outcome

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

Facts

On 16 March 2019, the plaintiff sold to the defendant an excavator for USD 125,000. The defendant paid a deposit of USD 27,000 and agreed to pay the balance of USD 98,000 in seven equal monthly installments of USD 14,000 starting April 2019, with final payment due 25 October 2019. The defendant made sporadic payments totalling USD 34,400 by 31 January 2020 but thereafter defaulted, leaving an outstanding balance of USD 63,600. The defendant alleged the excavator was unfit for purpose and broke down immediately upon delivery, but filed no evidence to support this defence. The defendant and its counsel failed to appear for the defence hearing, and the defence case was closed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant is in breach of the sales agreement?
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought?

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant.
  • USD 63,600 awarded being the unpaid balance of the purchase price.
  • General damages of UGX 50,000,000 awarded.
  • Interest at 6% per annum on the principal sum and general damages from the date of filing until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Duty of Party Signing Contractual Document
When a document containing contractual terms is signed, in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, the party signing it is bound regardless of whether they read the document or not.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Remedies — Compensation for Loss
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 damage caused, in accordance with section 61(1) of the Contracts Act 2010.
Contract Law — Liquidated Damages and Penalties — Contractual Interest — Unconscionable Interest
Where parties agree to a stipulated rate of interest upon breach, the court retains discretion under section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act to decline to enforce the contractual interest if it is harsh and unconscionable, even where it represents a genuine pre-estimate of damage.
Contract Law — Remedies for Breach — General Damages — Measure of Damages
General damages for breach of contract are assessed by reference to the loss actually suffered and that was foreseeable at the time the contract was entered into. The rule is that where a party sustains a loss by reason of breach, they are, so far as money can do it, to be placed in the same position as if the contract had been performed.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Costs Following the Event
Costs follow the event and the successful party is entitled to costs under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act unless the court finds good reason to order otherwise. A successful party can only be denied costs if it is proved that but for their conduct, the litigation could have been avoided.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (16)

  • Omar Saleh Audalih and another v A. Besse & Co. (Aden) Ltd (1960) E.A 910
  • L'Estrange v F. Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 403
  • Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd v Howard M. Bakojja (HCCS No. 53 of 2011)
  • Hall Brothers SS Co. Ltd v Young [1939] KB 748
  • Premchandra Shenoi & Anor v Maximov Oleg Petrovich (SCCA No. 09 of 2003)
  • Dada Cycles Ltd v Sofitra S.P.R.L. Ltd (HCCS No. 656 of 2005)
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 542 of 2006) [2008] ULR 690
  • John Kibyami v Mission and Relief Transport (CACA No. 0162 of 2013)
  • Sharif Osman v Hajji Haruna Mulangwa (SCCA No. 38 of 1995)
  • R.L Jain v Komugisha & 2 others (HCCS No. 98 of 2018)
  • Roko Construction Ltd v Kobusingye (Miscellaneous Cause No. 22 of 2021)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (S.C. Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Stephen Mabosi (SCCA No. 1 of 1996)
  • Harbutt's Plasticine Ltd v Wyne Tank & Pump Co. Ltd [1970] 1 Ch 447
  • Kinyera v Victoria Seeds Ltd (HCCS No. 604 of 2015)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Constructions [1981] HCB 35

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

Ariam Properties Limited v Royal Transit Limited (Civil Suit 31 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 283 (2 October 2023)
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.