Wakilii

CHOGM Tour Agents 2007 (U) Ltd v The Attorney General of Uganda (HCCS 18 of 2008)

High Court · [2009] UGCOMMC 46 · 2009 Judgment for Defendant 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 special damages
Decision
Claim dismissed with costs to the defendant

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 where bid documents clearly stipulated that registered service providers shall charge delegates directly for taxi hire services, the mere reference to a Local Purchase Order in an award notification letter does not amount to an amendment of the tender terms. The issuance of official security stickers to enable access to restricted areas is not evidence of a contract for free Government-funded services. The plaintiff failed to prove that the bid documents were amended to make Government liable for payment. Special damages must be strictly proved and cannot be awarded without supporting evidence such as receipts.

Outcome

Claim dismissed with costs to the defendant

Facts

The plaintiff, a limited liability company, was awarded a tender by the Ministry of Works and Transport to provide taxi hire services to delegates during the 2007 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) held in Kampala. The plaintiff rendered taxi hire services for five days and incurred expenses totalling UGX 485,775,000 for vehicles, fuel, uniforms, insurance, and other items. Government issued the plaintiff official pick-and-drop stickers for security accreditation purposes. After the event, the plaintiff sought payment from Government. Government refused, stating that according to the tender documents, the plaintiff was to be paid by the CHOGM delegates directly, not by Government. The plaintiff contended that the issuance of official stickers and a reference to a Local Purchase Order in the award notification letter meant Government had amended the tender terms to assume payment responsibility. The plaintiff sued for special damages, general damages, interest, and costs.

Issues

  1. Who was supposed to pay for the taxi hire services rendered during CHOGM 2007?
  2. What quantum of damages, if any, is due to the plaintiff?

Orders

  • Claim dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Tender Contracts — Amendment of Terms — Requirements for Valid Amendment
A contract term in a public procurement tender document cannot be amended by implication or casual reference in correspondence. Any amendment to important tender terms must be clear, unequivocal, and in writing, and must comply with the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act 2003 and its Regulations.
Contract Law — Interpretation of Contract Terms — Literal Meaning of Clear and Unequivocal Terms
Where a contract clause is clear and unequivocal, stating that registered service providers shall directly charge users for services, the clause must be given its literal meaning and effect. A party cannot rely on ambiguous correspondence or collateral conduct to contradict express written terms.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Effect of Award Notification Letters
The mere reference to a Local Purchase Order or the word 'contract' in a tender award notification letter does not, without more, bind Government to payment obligations that contradict the express terms of the underlying bid documents. The business of Government is not transacted casually and important contractual amendments require formal compliance with procurement law.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Civil Suits — Proving Facts on the Balance of Probabilities
In civil suits, the burden of proof lies squarely on the plaintiff to prove the case on the balance of probabilities. Where the plaint discloses questions of fact, those facts must be proved by evidence. He who asserts must affirm, and a party who would fail if no evidence were given bears the burden of proof.
Evidence — Special Damages — Requirement of Strict Proof
Special damages must not only be specifically pleaded but also strictly proved. Where no evidence such as receipts is led to prove special damages, the claim for special damages must be disallowed. It is incumbent upon a plaintiff to adduce sufficient documentary evidence to support claimed expenditure.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Barugahare v Attorney General (SCCA No. 28 of 1993)
  • Ereku Enterprise v Attorney General [1991] HCB 68

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

CHOGM Tour Agents 2007 (U) Ltd v The Attorney General of Uganda (HCCS 18 of 2008) [2009] UGCommC 46 (1 June 2009)
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.