Wakilii

Asha Ali Suleman and Another v Nassanga and Another (Civil Suit No. 338 of 2015)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 96 · 2022 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
Decision
Judgment for the 1st Plaintiff with damages and costs; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 13 (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 13 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 13 citing cases on record, 13 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 Defendants breached the sales agreement by failing to pay the agreed purchase price of UGX 100,000,000 and abandoning the salon after three months without notice. The court awarded the purchase price with contractual interest at 10% per annum, special damages of USD 1,000, and general damages of UGX 15,000,000 for breach of contract. The Defendants' counterclaim was dismissed.

Outcome

Judgment for the 1st Plaintiff with damages and costs; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed

Facts

On 12 March 2015, the 1st Plaintiff and 1st Defendant entered into a sales agreement for the purchase of Afsana Beauty Salon located at Kingsgate Mall, Kabalagala, at a price of UGX 100,000,000. The Defendants agreed to pay USD 10,000 as first instalment and the balance of UGX 70,000,000 by 3 April 2015. The Defendants took possession, renamed the salon Duchess Beauty Salon and Spa, and operated it for about three months. Two cheques issued by the Defendants were dishonoured by the bank. The Defendants abandoned the salon without paying the purchase price, leaving rental arrears of USD 4,100. The landlord sought to auction the salon items. The 1st Plaintiff paid USD 1,000 to the landlord to halt the auction and stored the items. The Defendants counterclaimed, alleging misrepresentation that the 1st Plaintiff was the owner and held a power of attorney, which they claimed did not exist upon search at URSB.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants are in breach of the sales agreement?
  2. Whether the parties are indebted to each other?
  3. Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought?

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the 1st Plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and severally.
  • Payment of UGX 100,000,000 being the contractual purchase price.
  • Payment of USD 1,000 being special damages.
  • Payment of UGX 15,000,000 being general damages for breach of contract.
  • Interest on the purchase price at 10% per annum from 3rd April 2015 until payment in full.
  • Interest on special damages at 20% per annum from date of filing suit until payment in full.
  • Interest on general damages at 8% per annum from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Taxed costs of the suit and the counterclaim awarded to the 1st Plaintiff.
  • The counterclaim dismissed.
  • No costs awarded to the 2nd Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Failure to Pay Purchase Price
Where a purchaser takes possession of property under a sales agreement, operates the business for several months, but fails to pay the agreed purchase price and abandons the property without notice to the vendor, the purchaser is in breach of the contract.
Contract Law — Rescission — Communication Required
A party seeking to rescind a contract of sale on grounds of alleged defective title or misrepresentation must communicate the rescission to the other party in clear terms. Abandoning the property without such communication does not constitute valid rescission.
Contract Law — Interest — Contractual Interest on Default
Where parties agree to interest on unpaid sums but do not specify the period, the court will interpret the rate as per annum. A clause providing for interest at 10% without specifying the period will be construed as 10% per annum, as a monthly rate would be exorbitant and unconscionable.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages for Breach of Contract — Assessment
The purpose of general damages for breach of contract is to restore the aggrieved party to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. The court considers the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience suffered, and the nature and extent of the injury in assessing such damages.
Civil Procedure — Parties — Superfluous Parties — Costs
Where a party is improperly joined to a suit and should have been a witness rather than a plaintiff, that party is not entitled to costs even if the suit succeeds.
Civil Procedure — Hearing in Absence of Defendant — Order 17 Rule 4
Where the defendant and their counsel fail to appear for the defence hearing despite sufficient evidence of service of hearing notices, the court may proceed in their absence and close the hearing pursuant to Order 17 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Damages & Quantum — Interest on Damages — Rates
Interest on special damages may be awarded at 20% per annum from the date of filing suit, and interest on general damages at 8% per annum from the date of judgment, having regard to inflation and currency depreciation while avoiding rates that are exorbitant.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (9)

  • Hadley v Baxendale (1894) 9 Exch 341
  • Charles Acire v M. Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Bank of Uganda v Fred William Masaba and 5 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1998)
  • Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] QB 801
  • Premchandra Shenoi and Another v Maximov Oleg Petrovich (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003)
  • Harbutt's Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank & Pump Co Ltd [1970] QB 447
  • Kinyera v Management Committee of Laroo Building Primary School (High Court Civil Suit No. 099 of 2013)

Cases citing this judgment (13)

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.

Asha Ali Suleman and Another v Nassanga and Another (Civil Suit No. 338 of 2015) [2022] UGCommC 96 (31 October 2022)
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.