Wakilii

Birungi v Ahinduraho (Civil Suit 70 of 2021)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 382 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff (Partial Recovery) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money, heard ex parte after defendant failed to file defence
Decision
Plaintiff recovered UGX 28,760,000 as money had and received; remainder of claim dismissed

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

The High Court held that an unwritten agreement exceeding UGX 500,000 is unenforceable under the Contracts Act 2010 s.10(5), but where money is advanced under such an agreement, the doctrine of unjust enrichment permits recovery of money had and received. The court allowed recovery of only the sum proven by documentary evidence (bank deposits totalling UGX 28,760,000), rejecting the plaintiff's larger claim where proof was absent. General damages and interest were denied for lack of justification.

Outcome

Plaintiff recovered UGX 28,760,000 as money had and received; remainder of claim dismissed

Facts

Between November 2019 and October 2020, the plaintiff advanced sums totalling UGX 60,460,500 to the defendant for various business ventures including soap manufacture, a clinic, land purchase, and cattle purchase. The parties had an oral mutual agreement to share profits. The plaintiff deposited UGX 28,760,000 into the defendant's joint bank account. When the defendant did not perform her obligations, the parties reached an agreement for her to refund UGX 58,543,000. The defendant failed to refund and did not file a defence. The suit proceeded ex parte for formal proof.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a valid contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and if so, whether the Defendant breached the contract.
  2. Whether the Plaintiff disbursed to the Defendant UGX 60,460,500 to purchase cows, fund the clinic business, fund the manufacturing of bar soap and purchase of land.
  3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover his monies amounting to UGX 60,460,500 advanced to the Defendant in the course of dealings between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
  4. What remedies are available.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff for UGX 28,760,000.
  • General damages denied.
  • Interest denied.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formalities — Writing Requirement — Contracts Act 2010 s.10(5)
A contract the subject matter of which exceeds UGX 500,000 must be in writing to be enforceable under the Contracts Act 2010, and the writing requirement is satisfied by any signed document that reasonably identifies the subject matter, indicates a contract exists, and states material terms with reasonable certainty.
Contract Law — Part Performance — Oral Contracts — Equity
An oral contract required to be evidenced in writing will be enforceable in equity through the doctrine of part performance where one party takes visible acts pursuant to the contract, such as handing over possession of the subject matter or making payments, and it would be inequitable for the other party to benefit from acts done in reliance on the contract.
Contract Law — Unjust Enrichment — Money Had and Received — Contracts Act 2010 s.54
Where an agreement is void or unenforceable under the Contracts Act 2010, a person who receives any advantage under such agreement is bound to restore it or pay compensation for it to the person from whom the advantage was received, pursuant to the principle against unjust enrichment codified in s.54 of the Contracts Act 2010.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Hearings — Burden of Proof — Order 9 rule 11(2)
Where a suit proceeds ex parte for formal proof under Order 9 rule 11(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the plaintiff bears the legal burden to place before the court evidence to sustain the averments in the plaint, and it is not automatic that the plaintiff will succeed merely because no defence was filed.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Admissibility — Identification and Admission
Documents annexed to pleadings but not properly identified and admitted as exhibits have diminished evidential value and cannot be relied upon to the same extent as properly admitted exhibits.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (10)

  • Nsubuga v Kavuma [1978] HCB 307
  • Musoke Kitenda v Roko Construction Limited (Misc. Application No. 1240 of 2020)
  • Lanex Forex Bureau Ltd v Mulangwe (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2016)
  • Dr James Kashugyera Tumwine & Anor v Sr Willie Magara & Anor (Civil Suit No. 576 of 2004)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Charles Acire v M Engonda (Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Omunyokol Akol Johnson v Attorney General [2012] UGSC 4
  • Crescent Transportation Co Ltd v Bin Technical Services Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2000)
  • Hope Mukankusi v Uganda Revenue Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2011)

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.

Birungi v Ahinduraho (Civil Suit 70 of 2021) [2024] UGHC 382 (29 May 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.