Wakilii

BF Suma Uganda Limited v Pearl of Africa Hotel Kampala and Others [2025] UGHC 1041

High Court · 2025 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 fraud, heard ex parte against 3rd and 4th Defendants after their counsel withdrew and they failed to appear
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant with declarations, damages, interest, and costs. Claims against 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Defendants dismissed as they were not privy to the contract.

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 held that the 1st Defendant breached its contract with the Plaintiff by switching off electricity during the event, failing to provide lunch and water, and refusing to refund unutilised payments. The court found the 1st Defendant liable for fraud imputed from its agents (3rd and 4th Defendants) who concealed receipt of payments. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Defendants were not personally liable as they were not privy to the contract. The Plaintiff was awarded UGX 11,000,000 in special damages, UGX 6,000,000 in general damages, and UGX 3,000,000 in punitive damages, with interest.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant with declarations, damages, interest, and costs. Claims against 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Defendants dismissed as they were not privy to the contract.

Facts

In August 2022, the Plaintiff contracted with the 1st Defendant for hotel services (ballroom, lunch, and water) for a workshop on 21 September 2022, agreeing to pay UGX 10,000,000. The Plaintiff paid UGX 10,000,000 into the 3rd Defendant's account as directed by the 2nd Defendant, who stated the 3rd Defendant was the 1st Defendant's manager. On the event day, the 1st Defendant switched off electricity claiming non-receipt of payment and demanded an additional UGX 5,000,000, which the Plaintiff paid under duress. The 1st Defendant failed to provide lunch and water. The 3rd Defendant had been managing the 1st Defendant's hotel but this arrangement ended on 5 September 2022. The 3rd Defendant did not inform the 1st Defendant of the payments received. The 4th Defendant issued a cheque for refund which was dishonoured for insufficient funds.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants' conduct amounted to breach of contract.
  2. Whether the Defendants acted fraudulently in their relations with the Plaintiff.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • A declaration that the 1st Defendant breached the contract for provision of hotel services/facilities doth issue.
  • The 1st Defendant shall pay UGX 11,000,000 in special damages to the Plaintiff.
  • The 1st Defendant shall pay UGX 6,000,000 in general damages to the Plaintiff.
  • The 1st Defendant shall pay UGX 3,000,000 in punitive damages to the Plaintiff.
  • Special damages shall attract interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 21st September 2022 until full payment.
  • General damages shall attract interest at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment.
  • Punitive damages shall attract interest at the rate of 13% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment.
  • The 1st Defendant shall pay 50% of the Plaintiff's costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Breach of Contract — Failure to Perform Contractual Obligations
When a party fails, neglects or refuses to perform contractual obligations without legal excuse, that party is in breach of contract and the aggrieved party is entitled to relief.
Privity of Contract — Personal Liability for Breach
Only parties privy to a contract can have personal contractual obligations flowing from that contract. Agents or employees acting in the course of their duties are not personally liable for breach of a contract to which they are not parties.
Fraud — Definition and Standard of Proof
Fraud means an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing or to surrender a legal right. Allegations of fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved to a standard higher than the ordinary balance of probabilities applicable in civil matters.
Agency — Imputation of Agent's Fraud to Principal
Where an agent acts fraudulently within the scope of apparent authority from the principal, the agent's fraud is imputed to the principal. A third party dealing with the agent can only obtain relief from the principal, not from the agent personally, even where the agent acted fraudulently.
Special Damages — Pleading and Proof
Special damages are financial losses resulting from a defendant's breach which are ascertained and quantifiable at the time the suit is filed. They must be specifically pleaded and proved, but strict proof need not always be documentary in nature.
Punitive Damages — Grounds for Award
Punitive damages may be awarded not merely to compensate the plaintiff but to punish the defendant and mark the court's displeasure at outrageous conduct. They are awarded only where the defendant's conduct was egregious, highhanded, vindictive, or malicious in nature.
Costs — Jurisdiction and Deterrent Awards
Where a suit could finally and conveniently have been disposed of by a lower court based on the quantum of special damages pleaded, the High Court may award reduced costs as a deterrent against the practice of filing cases in the High Court that fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (11)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • William Kasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 1326 of 2000)
  • Kabagambe Matthias v Kahire Nobert (High Court Civil Suit No. 389 of 2016)
  • Fredrick J.K. Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd & 5 Ors (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2006)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Hajji Yahaya Sekalega (High Court Civil Suit No. 185 of 2009)
  • Opia Moses v Chukia Lumago Roselyn & 5 Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 0022 of 2013)
  • Daniel Oboth v The New Vision Printing and Publishing Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1990)
  • Ahmed El Termewy v Hassan Awdi & 3 Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 95 of 2012)
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 0224 of 2011)
  • Kwizera Eddie v Attorney General (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 01 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

BF Suma Uganda Limited v Pearl of Africa Hotel Kampala and Others 2025 UGHC 1041 (24 September 2025)
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.