Wakilii

Arrow Link Uganda Limited v Plinth Technical Work (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 1 of 2016)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 272 · 2026 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 payment of damages; suit proceeded ex parte after defendant's absence
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff; defendant found in breach of contract and ordered to pay damages and the value of stones removed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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 a contract to purchase crushed stones by failing to make prompt and complete payments as stipulated, delaying project performance. The plaintiff was entitled to compensation for unpaid stones delivered, special damages, and general damages. The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed. The court emphasized that valid contracts create reciprocal obligations, and breach entitles the injured party to compensation under the Contracts Act.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff; defendant found in breach of contract and ordered to pay damages and the value of stones removed

Facts

On 29 November 2014, the defendant contracted with the plaintiff to purchase 18,000 tons of crushed stones for a Mbale road project and 32,000 tons for a Soroti project at UGX 24,000 per ton. The contract required staged payments: 10% deposit within 21 days of execution, 10% upon commencement of production, 50% upon delivery of half the stones, and 30% upon completion. The defendant paid the first installment late and incomplete, and failed to pay the second installment in full. The plaintiff commenced production but ran out of resources due to non-payment. On 13 July 2015, the defendant's manager removed 4,165 tons of crushed stones from the plaintiff's quarry without payment. The plaintiff continued working until resources depleted, then learned the defendant was sourcing stones elsewhere. The plaintiff closed the quarry at the end of 2015. The suit proceeded ex parte after the defendant's absence.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant was in breach of the terms of the contract.
  2. Whether the Plaintiff was in breach of the terms of the contract.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Defendant breached the contract dated 29th November 2014.
  • Plaintiff awarded UGX 50,000,000 as special damages.
  • Plaintiff awarded UGX 100,000,000 as general damages.
  • Defendant ordered to pay UGX 99,960,000 for 4,165 tons of crushed stones ferried from plaintiff's quarry.
  • Counterclaim by the Defendant dismissed.
  • Plaintiff awarded interest of 8% on special and general damages from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Definition and Elements
Breach of contract denotes 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, and may be occasioned by non-performance or repudiation or both.
Contract Law — Signed Contracts — Binding Effect in Absence of Fraud
Once a contract is valid, it creates reciprocal rights and obligations between the parties, and when a document containing contractual terms is signed, in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, the party signing it is bound by its terms.
Contract Law — Breach — Failure to Make Timely Payment Constitutes Breach
Where a contract stipulates specific payment timelines and amounts, failure to make payments within the stipulated time and in the agreed amounts constitutes breach of contract, and such breach by one party cannot justify non-performance by the other party where the breach caused the non-performance.
Contract Law — Remedies for Breach — Entitlement to Compensation
Under the Contracts Act section 60, where there is a breach of contract, the party who suffers the breach is entitled to receive compensation for any loss or damage caused, but not for remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach.
Damages — Special Damages — Proof and Assessment Where Plaintiff Failed to Mitigate Loss
Where breach of contract arises from defendant's failure to make prompt payments but the plaintiff elects to continue performance based on part payments rather than terminating the contract, the plaintiff's failure to mitigate loss may reduce the quantum of special damages recoverable.
Damages — General Damages — Assessment Based on Nature and Extent of Breach
In assessing quantum of general damages for breach of contract, courts are guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience suffered, and the nature and extent of the breach.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Civil Matters on Balance of Probabilities
In civil matters, the burden of proof lies upon the person who asserts or alleges a fact, and any person who wishes the court to believe the existence of a particular fact must prove that those facts exist on the balance of probabilities.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (6)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Bimba Agro Livestock Company Limited V. Landmark University (2020) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1748) 465
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 542 of 2006)
  • William Kasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd (HCCS No. 1326 of 2000)
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (HCCS No. 13 of 1993)
  • Erukankuwe v Isaac Patrick Matovu & Anor (HCCS No. 177 of 2003)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Arrow Link Uganda Limited v Plinth Technical Work (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 1 of 2016) [2026] UGHC 272 (26 March 2026)
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.