Wakilii

Balaam v Haruna & Another (Civil Suit 67 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 214 · 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 and recovery of money, proceeding ex parte after defendant failed to file defence
Decision
Defendant ordered to pay UGX 1,400,000,000 principal sum plus UGX 140,000,000 general damages with interest at 6% per annum and costs of the suit

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

Held that the defendant breached a loan agreement by failing to repay UGX 1,400,000,000 advanced by the plaintiff despite contractual obligations and an addendum extending payment dates. The defendant's failure to enter appearance or file defence after substituted service left the plaintiff's evidence uncontested. The court found breach of contract proved on balance of probabilities and awarded the principal sum plus general damages of UGX 140,000,000 to compensate for business opportunity losses, with interest at 6% per annum from filing to judgment and thereafter until full payment.

Outcome

Defendant ordered to pay UGX 1,400,000,000 principal sum plus UGX 140,000,000 general damages with interest at 6% per annum and costs of the suit

Facts

In July 2021, the plaintiff, a businessman, advanced UGX 1,000,000,000 by electronic transfer and UGX 400,000,000 in cash (totalling UGX 1,400,000,000) to the defendant pursuant to a written agreement requiring repayment in instalments within six months. The defendant, who held power of attorney for BMK Uganda Limited for a Ministry of Health procurement contract, provided standing orders and post-dated cheques as security. The defendant repaid UGX 400,000,000 in cash and requested a further advance of UGX 400,000,000 in January 2022, entering an addendum extending payment dates to July 2022 and promising new securities. The defendant failed to provide the new securities or make further payments despite the plaintiff's demands. After unsuccessful attempts at personal service, the plaintiff obtained substituted service by newspaper advertisement. The defendant failed to enter appearance or file a defence, and the suit proceeded ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a breach of contract?
  2. Whether the Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • There was a breach of contract by the Defendant.
  • The Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff to the amount of UGX 1,400,000,000.
  • The Plaintiff is entitled to recover UGX 1,400,000,000 from the Defendant.
  • Interest shall accrue on UGX 1,400,000,000 at a rate of 6% per annum prorated from the date of filing the suit to the date of judgment.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 140,000,000.
  • The Defendant shall meet the costs of this suit.
  • Interest at a rate of 6% per annum shall accrue on the sums in paragraphs (c) and (d) from the date of judgment until payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Effect of Failure to File Defence — Substituted Service
Where a defendant is served by substituted service and fails to file a defence within the prescribed time, the suit may proceed ex parte under Order 9 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and a defendant who fails to file a defence puts himself out of court and no longer has any locus standi and cannot be heard.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Elements of Proof — Burden of Proof
A breach of contract is established where a plaintiff proves on a balance of probabilities that a contract existed, that the plaintiff performed their contractual obligations, and that the defendant failed to perform their obligations without legal excuse.
Contract Law — Power of Attorney — Personal Liability — Capacity of Signatory
Where a defendant signs a loan agreement in which they are described in recitals as holding power of attorney for a company but the signatory and acknowledgment portions do not state that the defendant is entering the transaction on behalf of the company, and there is no evidence of the power of attorney itself, the defendant is personally liable for the debt rather than acting as agent for the company.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Breach of Contract — Loss of Business Opportunity
In commercial matters, general damages may be awarded for breach of contract to compensate a plaintiff businessman for deprivation of use of their capital in business activities, recognising the economic realities of Uganda's business environment where access to credit is limited and expensive, and retention of money can cause hardship through lost investment opportunities.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Quantum — Compensatory Principle
The primary purpose of general damages is to compensate the plaintiff for their loss, not to unjustly enrich the plaintiff or unjustly punish the defendant, and the court must assess damages with the object of putting the plaintiff in the position they would have occupied but for the breach.
Commercial Law — Interest — Contractual Disputes — Rate of Interest
Under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court may award pre-judgment interest from the date of default to the date of filing suit, and post-judgment interest from the date of judgment until payment in full, at such rate as the court deems reasonable, with 6% per annum being appropriate in commercial lending disputes.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (29)

  • Kanji Devji v Damodar Jinabhai & Co (1934) 1 EACA 87
  • Valery Alia v Alionzi John (High Court Civil Suit No. 157 of 2010)
  • Lloyds Forex Bureau v Securex Agencies (U) Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 358 of 2012)
  • Dembe Trading Enterprises Ltd v Uganda Confidential Ltd & Anor (High Court Civil Suit No. 612 of 2006)
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 373
  • Meridiana Africa Airlines (U) Limited v Avmax Spares (EA) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 111 of 2017)
  • Prof Rubaire Akiiki & Ors v Development Consultants International Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 370 of 2011)
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006)
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd and 5 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2006)
  • Sidpra & Sidpra v Uganda Rehabilitation Development Foundation (High Court Civil Suit No. 199 of 1993)
  • Eric Ssali v Uganda Baati (High Court Civil Suit No. 564 of 2022)
  • Nuwe Amanya Mushega v Charles Odere (High Court Civil Suit No. 102 of 2012)
  • Storms v Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Obongo & Another v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] EA 91
  • Ntabgoba v Editor-in-chief of the New Vision & Another [2004] 2 EA 234
  • Peter Musoke v Merger Technical Services Uganda Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 426 of 2022)
  • MTK (U) Limited v Attorney General & Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 578 of 2022)
  • Luwa Luwa Investments Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1336 of 2022)
  • Aya Investments (U) Limited v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 3063 of 2023)
  • Hussein Ali Benyoka v Kaydee Quarry Ltd [2019] eKLR
  • Charles Kimani Ng'ang'a v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited [2006] EKLR
  • Robert Nampogo & Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 43 of 2012)
  • Sietco v Noble Builders U Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995)
  • Ahmed Ibrahim Bholm v Car & General Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2003)
  • Administrator General v Bwanika James & Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2003)
  • Harry Ssempa v Kamabagambire David (High Court Civil Suit No. 408 of 2014)
  • Lyamuleme David v AG (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2013)
  • Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 873

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.

Balaam v Haruna & Another (Civil Suit 67 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 214 (31 July 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.