Wakilii

Atino v Akright Projects Limited (Civil Suit No. 0062 of 2010)

High Court · [2018] UGHCLD 10 · 2018 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 heard ex-parte
Decision
Plaintiff awarded damages and refund of deposit with interest

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 2 times 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

Where a vendor receives part payment under a sale agreement but fails to complete the house and instead sells the property to a third party, this constitutes fundamental breach of contract. The purchaser acquires an equitable interest upon payment of the deposit and is entitled to damages where specific performance would injure an innocent third party purchaser.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded damages and refund of deposit with interest

Facts

The Plaintiff agreed to purchase land comprising Kyadondo Block 234 Plot 19523 at Kirinya for UGX 155,000,000 in instalments. The agreement required UGX 80,000,000 to be paid at execution, UGX 37,500,000 at handover of the property, and the balance within 12 months of handover. The Plaintiff paid the initial UGX 80,000,000. By the due date of the second payment, the house remained incomplete. The Defendant failed to complete the house and instead sold the property to a third party, evicting the Plaintiff. The matter proceeded ex-parte. Three witnesses testified for the Plaintiff.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant was in breach of the sale agreement.
  2. What remedies are available to the Plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff.
  • General damages awarded to the Plaintiff in the sum of UGX 40,000,000.
  • Refund of deposit of UGX 80,000,000 awarded to the Plaintiff.
  • Interest awarded at commercial rate of 23% per annum on general damages from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Fundamental Breach — Sale Agreement
Where a vendor receives part payment under a sale agreement but fails to perform the obligation to deliver the property and instead sells it to a third party, this constitutes a fundamental breach of contract entitling the innocent purchaser to damages.
Land & Property — Equitable Interest — Part Payment
A purchaser who pays the deposit under a sale agreement acquires an equitable interest in the property, and the vendor is bound to specific performance of the terms of the contract.
Contract Law — Remedies — Specific Performance — Innocent Third Party
Where specific performance of a contract would injure an innocent third party purchaser, the remedy of damages is appropriate in place of specific performance.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment — Breach of Sale Agreement
General damages for breach of a sale agreement may include compensation for pain and suffering from unperformed obligations, inconvenience and embarrassment from unlawful eviction, and psychological torture from unutilised property rights.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Basis for Award
Interest is awarded on the basis that the defendant has taken and used the plaintiff's money and benefited, and consequently ought to compensate the plaintiff. Interest on general damages runs from the date of judgment until payment, while interest on special damages runs from the date of filing suit until payment.

Cases cited (2)

  • Premchandra Shenoi & Anor v Maximor (SCCA No. 31 of 2003)
  • R. W. Hodgins; Law of Contract in East Africa

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Atino_v_Akright_Projects_Limited_(Civil_Suit_No._0062_of_2010)_[2018]_UGHCLD_10_(30_January_2018)
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.