Wakilii

Byakika v Amotrust Construction Services Limited & Another (Civil Suit 951 of 2018)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 156 · 2024 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 recovery of monies
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the first defendant for UGX 83,945,080 plus general damages of UGX 20,000,000 with interest; second defendant found not liable

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 court held that a contract existed between the plaintiff and the first defendant through their subcontract arrangement. The plaintiff was also a third-party beneficiary to the contract between the defendants under Contracts Act s.65(1), entitled to enforce payment terms in her favour. The first defendant breached the contract by failing to pay UGX 83,945,080 outstanding. The second defendant did not breach any contract with the plaintiff. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the first defendant for the outstanding amount plus general damages.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the first defendant for UGX 83,945,080 plus general damages of UGX 20,000,000 with interest; second defendant found not liable

Facts

In 2018, the second defendant was awarded a contract by Welt Hunger Hilfe to excavate two valley tanks in Moroto District. The second defendant subcontracted the first defendant for the excavation. The first defendant then introduced the plaintiff as its business partner and financier. By a variation deed, the project was reduced to one dam at a cost of UGX 90,000,000, with payments to be made to the plaintiff. The plaintiff financed and mobilized equipment including an excavator, bulldozer, pickup truck, and low beds, incurring costs of UGX 103,945,080. She received only UGX 20,000,000 despite performing her contractual obligations. The first defendant subsequently instructed the second defendant to stop payments to the plaintiff. The first defendant failed to appear at trial despite service and the matter proceeded ex parte against them.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a contract between the Plaintiff and each of the Defendants?
  2. Whether there was a breach of contract and by whom?
  3. Whether the Plaintiff executed any works under the subcontract between the 1st and 2nd Defendants?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • There exists a contract between the Plaintiff and Defendants.
  • The Plaintiff financed and/or did work under the subcontract with the 1st Defendant.
  • The 1st Defendant breached the contract with the Plaintiff by failing to make payment of UGX 83,945,080.
  • The 2nd Defendant did not breach the contract with the Plaintiff and is not liable to the plaintiff.
  • The Plaintiff is entitled to the outstanding sum of UGX 83,945,080 owed by the 1st Defendant.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded General Damages of UGX 20,000,000 against the 1st Defendant.
  • Interest of 12% per annum on the outstanding sum from the date of filing this suit until payment in full.
  • Interest of 9% per annum on the general damages from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The 1st Defendant shall bear the Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant's costs of this suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Formation of Contract — Third Party Beneficiary Rights
A person who is not a party to a contract may enforce a term of that contract in their own right where the contract expressly provides that they may do so or where a term of the contract confers a benefit on that person, provided the contract clearly identifies the third party and shows an irrevocable intention to benefit them.
Third Party Beneficiary — Requirements for Enforcement
For a claimant to properly maintain a claim as a third-party beneficiary they must show that the contract either provides that they can enforce it or confers a benefit on them, that a proper construction of the contract shows the provision was intended to be binding, that the contract clearly identifies the third party, and that the term conferring the benefit is subject to and in accordance with the contract.
Evidence of Contract Formation — Conduct and Intention
A contract does not necessarily need to be in writing and can be inferred from the conduct and intention of the parties.
Breach of Contract — Evidence of Work Completion
Where a plaintiff alleges work completion, payment received by the plaintiff without being described as an advance payment, discharge of other obligations, gift or charitable donation constitutes evidence that works were undertaken, absent any other reasonable explanation for such payment.
Ex Parte Proceedings — Burden of Proof
Whether a case proceeds ex parte or not, the burden on the plaintiff to prove their case on a balance of probabilities remains unchanged.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (23)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 ALL ER 372
  • Kabagambe v Nobert (High Court Civil Suit No. 389 of 2016)
  • Vivo Energy Uganda Limited & Another v Samuel Black & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 37 of 2019)
  • Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (Civil Suit No. 580 of 2003)
  • Ebbzworld Ltd & Another v Rutakirwa (High Court Civil Suit No. 398 of 2013)
  • Asante Aviation Ltd v Star of Africa Charters Ltd and 3 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 431 of 2014)
  • Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847
  • Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd v Can-Dive Services Ltd [1999] 3 SCR 108
  • Les Affréteurs v Walford [1919] AC 801
  • Re Schebsman [1944] Ch 83
  • Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58
  • Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 1468
  • Shanklin Pier Ltd v Detel Products Ltd [1951] 2 KB 854
  • Nisshin Shipping Co Ltd v Cleaves & Co Ltd [2003] EWHC 2602
  • Guangdong Hao He Engineering & Construction Company (U) Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 37 of 2020)
  • Acaa Bilentina v Okello Micheal (Court of Appeal No. 53 of 2015)
  • Kityo v Erias Kaddu [1982] HCB 58
  • Nakawa Trading Co Ltd v Coffee Marketing Board (Civil Suit No. 137 of 1991)
  • Hall Brothers SS Co Ltd v Young [1939] 1 KB 748
  • Storms v Hutchinson (1905) AC 515
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Waiglobe (U) Limited v Sai Beverages Limited (Civil Suit No. 16 of 2017)
  • Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 873

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Byakika v Amotrust Construction Services Limited & Another (Civil Suit 951 of 2018) [2024] UGCommC 156 (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.