Wakilii

Burengye Keith v Fipro Uganda Limited and Another (Civil Suit 254 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 246 · 2026 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 unjust enrichment; default judgment entered after defendants failed to enter appearance
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff; defendants ordered to pay UGX 65,000,000 plus exemplary damages of UGX 5,000,000 and costs

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 defendants breached three investment contracts by failing to remit promised profits and issuing dishonoured cheques totalling UGX 65,000,000. The court found the defendants jointly and severally liable for the full amount plus exemplary damages of UGX 5,000,000 for deliberately obtaining money under false pretences and issuing invalid cheques, causing inconvenience and economic loss to the plaintiff.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff; defendants ordered to pay UGX 65,000,000 plus exemplary damages of UGX 5,000,000 and costs

Facts

The second defendant, a director of the first defendant company, approached the plaintiff with investment opportunities, representing that the company had secured purchase orders from Uganda AIDS Commission. Between April and July 2023, the plaintiff invested UGX 60,000,000 across three separate investment agreements. In consideration, the second defendant issued multiple post-dated cheques totalling UGX 65,000,000 (including profit). All cheques were dishonoured upon presentation. Despite repeated demands, the defendants failed to refund the invested sums or honour the cheques. The defendants did not enter appearance and default judgment was entered.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants breached the contracts signed with the plaintiff
  2. Whether the defendants are indebted to the plaintiff
  3. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • The defendants jointly and severally breached the investment contracts signed with the plaintiff.
  • The defendants jointly and severally are ordered to pay to the plaintiff UGX 65,000,000.
  • The plaintiff is awarded exemplary damages of UGX 5,000,000 for the inconvenience and economic loss occasioned by the defendants' actions.
  • The plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Definition and Elements
Breach of contract is the breaking of the obligation which a contract imposes, which confers a right of action for damages on the injured party. When one party to a contract fails to perform their obligation or performs it in a way that does not correspond with the agreement, the guilty party is in breach and the innocent party is entitled to a remedy.
Banking & Finance — Dishonoured Cheques — Liability for Invalid Cheques
Where a party issues cheques knowing there are insufficient funds in the account and causes another party to believe the transactions are valid when they are not, the issuing party is liable for breach of contract and the losses occasioned thereby.
Damages & Quantum — Exemplary Damages — Grounds for Award
Exemplary damages may be awarded where the defendant's actions were calculated to make profit, or where there has been oppressive or arbitrary conduct. Deliberately obtaining money under false pretences and issuing invalid cheques that occasion great inconvenience and economic loss constitutes proper grounds for an award of exemplary damages.
Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Formal Proof
Where a defendant fails to enter appearance and default judgment is entered, the matter proceeds to formal proof. Uncontested testimony and documentary evidence establishing the plaintiff's claims on a balance of probabilities will result in judgment for the plaintiff.

Cases cited (2)

  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006)
  • Rookes v Barnard [1964] All ER 347

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Burengye Keith v Fipro Uganda Limited and Another (Civil Suit 254 of 2024) [2026] UGCommC 246 (30 March 2026)
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.