Wakilii

Circuit Power (U) Ltd v PNN Technology Solutions Ltd (Civil Suit No. 263 of 2012)

High Court · [2015] UGHCCD 82 · 2015 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Summary suit under Order 36 CPR for recovery of debt for goods sold and delivered, heard exparte after defendant failed to appear
Decision
Judgment for plaintiff for full amount claimed 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 where a plaintiff in a summary suit proceeding exparte proves on a balance of probabilities that goods were supplied to the defendant and payment has not been made, judgment will be entered for the debt claimed. The plaintiff satisfied the burden of proof through invoices, delivery notes, and a statement of account showing the defendant received goods valued at UGX 174,593,471 which remained unpaid despite demand.

Outcome

Judgment for plaintiff for full amount claimed plus costs

Facts

Between 20 December 2010 and 21 December 2010, the plaintiff supplied generators and various items to the defendant pursuant to local purchase orders. Invoices and delivery notes were issued and communicated to the defendant. By May 2012, the defendant's account showed an outstanding debt of UGX 174,593,471. Despite reminders, the defendant failed to pay. The plaintiff filed a summary suit under Order 36 CPR. The defendant was granted leave to defend by consent on 19 August 2013 but failed to appear at the hearing. The suit proceeded exparte after effective service was proved by return of service filed on 1 April 2014.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff proved the supply of goods to the defendant to the required standard.
  2. Whether the plaintiff proved that the defendant owes the sum claimed.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff in the sum of UGX 174,593,471/-.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Suits — Order 36 CPR — Burden of Proof in Exparte Proceedings
Even where a summary suit proceeds exparte due to the defendant's non-appearance, the burden remains on the plaintiff to prove the case to the required standard on a balance of probabilities.
Contract Law — Sale of Goods — Proof of Supply and Non-Payment
A plaintiff claiming payment for goods sold and delivered must prove on a balance of probabilities that an arrangement existed, that goods were supplied, and that payment has not been made. This may be established through invoices, delivery notes, and statements of account.

Legislation cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Circuit Power (U) Ltd v PNN Technology Solutions Ltd (Civil Suit No. 263 of 2012) [2015] UGHCCD 82 (27 August 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.