Wakilii

Arrow Centre (U) Ltd v Polat Yol Yapi Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi (Civil Suit 534 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 375 · 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 contract following interlocutory judgment under Order 9 rule 8 for failure to file defence
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff with outstanding sum, general damages, interest, and costs awarded following defendant's failure to defend

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 High Court Commercial Division held that the defendant breached the contract by failing to pay UGX 62,128,000 for tyres supplied. Following an interlocutory judgment under Order 9 rule 8 for failure to file a defence, the court awarded the plaintiff the outstanding sum plus general damages of UGX 8,000,000 for deprivation of business funds, interest at 20% per annum on the principal from filing date, 6% per annum on general damages from judgment, and costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with outstanding sum, general damages, interest, and costs awarded following defendant's failure to defend

Facts

On 5th February 2022, the defendant issued a Local Purchase Order for 52 pieces of 13R 22.5 Royal Black tyres. On 8th February 2022, the plaintiff supplied and delivered 44 pieces of the tyres and issued a tax invoice for UGX 64,664,000. The defendant paid only UGX 2,536,000, leaving an outstanding balance of UGX 62,128,000. Despite several reminders, the defendant refused to pay. Summons to file a defence were served on 24th May 2024 and subsequently by substituted service through newspaper publication on 25th October 2024, but the defendant failed to file a written statement of defence. An interlocutory judgment was entered on 11th November 2024 for failure to defend, and the matter proceeded to formal proof and assessment of damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an award of general damages for breach of contract by the Defendant?
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest and costs of the suit?

Orders

  • It is declared that the Defendant breached the terms of the Contract for the supply of Royal Black tyres.
  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff UGX 62,128,000 being outstanding monies for the 44 Royal Black tyres supplied on 8th February 2022.
  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff general damages amounting to UGX 8,000,000.
  • Interest is awarded on the principal sum at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • Interest is awarded on the general damages at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Failure to Pay for Goods Supplied — Remedy
Where a party breaches a contract by failing to pay for goods supplied, the injured party is entitled to receive compensation for loss or damage caused by the breach under section 60(1) of the Contracts Act Cap. 284.
Contract Law — General Damages — Measure and Assessment — Compensatory Principle
The measure of general damages for breach of contract is such sum of money as will place the injured party in the same position as he or she would have been had the breach not occurred, restoring satisfaction as far as money can do to the injured plaintiff.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Judgment — Default of Defence — Assessment of Damages
Where an interlocutory judgment has been entered for failure to file a defence under Order 9 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the only issue remaining for determination is the quantum or assessment of damages, if any.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (6)

  • Haji Asumani Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Kabandize John Baptist and 21 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2016)
  • Takiya Kashwahiri and Another v Kajungu Denis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Deo Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation (U) Ltd and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Arrow Centre (U) Ltd v Polat Yol Yapi Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi (Civil Suit 534 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 375 (23 December 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.