Wakilii

CAL (U) Ltd v Uganda Posts Ltd (Civil Suit No. 660 of 2014)

High Court · [2015] UGCOMMC 35 · 2015 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Summary suit under Order 36 Rule 2 CPR for recovery of contract debt, initially defended on merits but subsequently defended only on interest and costs after payment of principal sum
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff for interest on the principal sum already paid, plus 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

Held that interest at 3% per month was properly claimed under Order 36 Rule 2 CPR where the invoice terms expressly provided for such interest on overdue payments. The court has discretionary power under section 26(2) CPA to award interest on money judgments including those filed under summary procedure. Costs follow the event under section 27 CPA where the defendant paid only after suit was filed and failed to establish good cause for not paying costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff for interest on the principal sum already paid, plus costs

Facts

The Plaintiff supplied goods worth USD 16,032.40 to the Defendant pursuant to a Local Purchase Order dated 19.12.12. Goods were delivered on 12.02.13 with a tax invoice stipulating payment after delivery and interest at 3% per month on overdue invoices. The Defendant acknowledged receipt in good condition. Despite multiple reminders sent on 18.04.13, 29.08.13, and 23.01.14, the Defendant failed to pay for 18 months. The Plaintiff filed suit on 18.08.14 under Order 36 Rule 2 CPR. The Defendant sought leave to defend via Miscellaneous Application 907/2014. Before hearing, the Defendant paid the principal sum and agreed to pay costs but disputed liability for interest. The parties agreed the only issue for determination was entitlement to interest and costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 3% per month as claimed under Order 36 Rule 2 CPR.
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit.

Orders

  • Interest granted to the Plaintiff on the sum paid by the Defendant at the rate of 3% per month from 12.02.13 until the date it was paid.
  • Plaintiff granted costs of the suit.
  • Interest on costs at the rate of 6% from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Judgment given to the Plaintiff in those terms.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Order 36 Rule 2 CPR — Interest Claims
Interest expressly agreed upon in contract terms is properly claimable under Order 36 Rule 2 CPR summary procedure. Where an invoice stipulates that interest will be charged on overdue payments at a specified rate, and that invoice is signed and stamped by the defendant, interest is a liquidated claim recoverable under summary procedure.
Civil Procedure — Interest — Discretionary Power of Court — Section 26(2) CPA
Section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act gives the court discretionary power to award interest on any decree for payment of money. This power extends to judgments for payment of money filed under summary procedure and is not excluded by Order 36 CPR. Even where interest has not been contractually agreed, the court may exercise its discretion to award interest to compensate a plaintiff for loss of use of money during the period of non-payment.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Section 27 CPA — Costs Follow the Event
Under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, costs follow the event unless for good cause the court orders otherwise. Where a defendant pays the principal sum only after a suit has been filed and after obtaining leave to defend, having failed to respond to multiple pre-suit demands for payment, the defendant has not established good cause for departing from the general rule that costs follow the event.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Begumisa Enterprises Ltd vs. East African Development Bank
  • Jackson Rwakiseeta v Lonrho Cotton (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2002)
  • Bank of Baroda (U) Ltd v Wilson Buyonjo Kamugunda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

CAL (U) Ltd v Uganda Posts Ltd (Civil Suit No. 660 of 2014) [2015] UGCommC 35 (17 February 2015)
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.