Wakilii

Birimu v Akamba (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 132 of 1991)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 21 · 1993 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for damages for breach of contract
Decision
Suit dismissed with costs to the defendant

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 dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from delayed delivery of a tiller. The court held that no contract existed between the plaintiff and the defendant local agent, as the contract was directly between the plaintiff and the foreign manufacturer Messey Furguson (U.K.). The defendant merely assisted in connecting the plaintiff with the supplier and gave an experiential estimate of delivery time, which did not constitute an undertaking. As a stranger to the contract, the defendant could not be liable for breach.

Outcome

Suit dismissed with costs to the defendant

Facts

The plaintiff, a sugar cane farmer producing jaggery, obtained an agricultural loan from UCB in 1987 to purchase a tractor, plough, and tiller. He approached the defendant, a local agent of Messey Furguson (U.K.), to purchase these items. The defendant did not have stock but assisted the plaintiff in obtaining pro-forma invoices directly from the supplier. The plaintiff's bank opened irrevocable letters of credit in favour of Messey Furguson (U.K.). Payment was made directly to the supplier by telex. Four months later, when the defendant received their own consignment, they delivered a tractor and plough to the plaintiff from their stock on the understanding that the plaintiff's ordered items would replace them upon arrival. However, the tiller did not arrive until nine months after the expected delivery time, allegedly due to loss at Mombasa port by the shipping agents. The plaintiff claimed the defendant undertook to deliver within three months and sued for breach of contract.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.
  2. Whether the defendant undertook to deliver the tractor to the plaintiff within three months from the date of the agreement.
  3. Whether the plaintiff suffered any loss as a result of the delay in delivery.
  4. Whether the defendant was liable for the delay in the delivery of the tiller.
  5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies claimed.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation — Essential Elements — Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration
To determine the prima facie existence of a contract between two parties, it is essential to establish the presence of three elements: offer, acceptance, and consideration.
Contract Law — Privity of Contract — Local Agent as Intermediary
Where a buyer orders goods from a foreign manufacturer through a local agent who merely assists in transmitting the order and obtaining pro-forma invoices, with payment made directly to the manufacturer, the contract is formed between the buyer and the manufacturer, not with the local agent.
Contract Law — Agency — Liability of Agent
A local agent who is not a party to a contract and does not contract on behalf of their principal cannot be held liable for breach of that contract, even where they provided guidance on delivery timeframes based on experience.
Evidence — Special Damages — Standard of Proof
Special damages must be strictly proved. While documentary evidence is not always necessary and cogent oral evidence may suffice, evidence that fails to provide sufficient detail (such as naming persons from whom services were hired) is not cogent and casts doubt on its reliability.
Damages & Quantum — Measure of Damages — Loss of Use
Where a plaintiff seeks damages for loss of use of machinery, the measure of loss is the rate of hiring such machinery per day for the period it would have been used if timely delivered, though such expectation of financial profit may be too speculative for evaluation without supporting evidence of hire rates.

Cases cited (1)

  • Parkars Music & Sports House v Motorek Ltd [1959] EA 534

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Birimu v Akamba (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 132 of 1991) [1993] UGHC 21 (5 November 1993)
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.