Birumi Wilson v Akamba (U) Ltd. (Civil Suit No. 152 of 1991)
Observed later treatment
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
Held that no contract existed between the plaintiff and the defendant company, who acted merely as a facilitator. The contract of sale was between the plaintiff and Massey Ferguson (UK) directly. The defendant, not being a party to the contract, was not liable for the nine-month delay in delivery of the tiller. Special damages claimed by the plaintiff were not strictly proved. The suit was dismissed with costs to the defendant.
Outcome
Suit dismissed with costs to the defendant
Facts
The plaintiff, a sugar cane farmer, obtained an agricultural loan to purchase farming equipment including a tractor, plough, and tiller. He approached the defendant company, local agents of Massey Ferguson (UK), who did not have the items in stock but advised on models and assisted the plaintiff to obtain pro-forma invoices directly from the UK supplier. The plaintiff's bank opened irrevocable letters of credit in favour of Massey Ferguson (UK). Four months later, the defendant received their own consignment and delivered a tractor and plough to the plaintiff from that stock, on the understanding that the plaintiff's order would replace these items when it arrived. The tiller ordered by the plaintiff did not arrive until nine months later due to shipping delays at Mombasa port. The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract claiming damages for late delivery.
Issues
- Whether there was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.
- Whether the defendant undertook to deliver the tractor to the plaintiff within three months from the date of the agreement.
- Whether the plaintiff suffered any loss as a result of the delay in delivery.
- Whether the defendant was liable for the delay in the delivery of the tiller.
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies claimed.
Orders
- Suit dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the defendant.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (1)
- Parkars Music & Sports House v Motodil Ltd (1959) EA 554
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.