Wakilii

Coca-Cola Beverages Uganda Limited v Bukusu Constructors Limited (Civil Suit No. 1316 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 96 · 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 with interlocutory judgment entered for failure to file defence in time
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with declaration of breach, special and general damages, interest, and costs awarded

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 Commercial Division held that the defendant distributor breached its contract with the plaintiff supplier by failing to remit proceeds from goods supplied on credit. The court awarded special damages of UGX 372,431,700 representing the outstanding debt, general damages of UGX 40,000,000 for financial loss and inconvenience, interest at 18% per annum on special damages from filing date, and 6% per annum on general damages from judgment date, plus costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with declaration of breach, special and general damages, interest, and costs awarded

Facts

On 30 September 2023, Coca-Cola Beverages Uganda Limited appointed Bukusu Constructors Limited as its official distributor in Manafwa, Eastern Uganda for three years. Under a credit arrangement in 2024/2025, the defendant received products on credit and agreed to sell them and deposit proceeds regularly to the plaintiff's bank accounts. The defendant received goods but from 5 October 2025 refused to remit sale proceeds despite demands. As of 4 October 2025, the defendant owed UGX 372,431,700. The defendant was served with summons on 13 November 2025 but failed to file defence within 15 days. Interlocutory judgment was entered on 18 December 2025. The defendant filed a defence on 12 February 2026 without leave, which was struck out as incompetent. The matter proceeded to formal proof.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to special damages?
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to general damages, interest and costs of the suit?

Orders

  • It is hereby declared that the Defendant breached the contract between the parties.
  • The Plaintiff is hereby awarded special damages of UGX 372,431,700/=.
  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff general damages amounting to UGX 40,000,000/=.
  • Interest at a rate of 18% per annum is awarded on the special damages from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • Interest at a rate of 6% per annum is awarded on the general damages from the date of Judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Defence — Time Limits — Filing Defence Out of Time Without Leave
A defendant served with summons to file a defence must file the defence within 15 days after service. Failure to file a written statement of defence within the prescribed time without first obtaining leave of court renders the defence incompetent and liable to be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Judgment — Formal Proof — Duty of Plaintiff
Where the court sets down a suit for formal proof after a default order has been made, the plaintiff is under a duty to place before the court evidence to sustain the averments in the plaint.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Pleading and Proof
Special damages relate to past expenses and loss of earnings arising out of special circumstances of a particular case. The guiding principle is that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Strict proof does not mean proof must always be documentary evidence; special damages can also be proved by direct evidence, including testimony of a person who received or paid or testimonies of experts conversant with the matter.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — General Damages — Assessment
The general rule regarding the measure of general damages is that the award is such a sum of money that will put the party who has been injured or who has suffered as adjudged by court in the same position as he or she would have been had he or she not sustained the wrong for which he or she is getting the compensation. General damages should be compensatory in nature and restore some satisfaction, as far as money can do, to the injured plaintiff. While assessing quantum, courts are mainly guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience that a party might have been put through, and the nature and extent of the breach or injury suffered.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Discretion of Court — Factors to Consider
Interest is awarded at the discretion of the court, but the court should exercise the discretion judiciously, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. In determining a just and reasonable rate, courts take into account the ever rising inflation and drastic depreciation of the currency. A plaintiff is entitled to such rate of interest as would not neglect the prevailing economic value of money, but at the same time one which would insulate him or her against economic vagaries and the inflation and depreciation of the currency in the event that the money awarded is not promptly paid when it falls due.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Costs Follow the Event
Costs of any cause shall follow the event unless otherwise ordered by the court. A successful party can only be denied costs if it is proved that but for his or her conduct, the action would not have been brought. Costs will follow the event where the party succeeds in the main purpose of the suit.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (18)

  • Simon Tendo Kabenge v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2015)
  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Kasirye, Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates v Uganda Development Bank [2008] UGSC 11
  • Export Trading Company (U) Limited v OBN Produce and Supply Company Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1871 of 2024)
  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Kirungi and Another v Kabiya and Others [1987] KLR 347
  • Mugabi John v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 133 of 2002)
  • W.M Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v A.S Transporters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Swarna Garikapati v Abhayamm Health Care Africa Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 317 of 2025)
  • Kabandize John Baptist and 21 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2016)
  • Takiya Kashwahiri and Another v Kajungu Denis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Deo Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation (U) Ltd and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2000)
  • Wallersteiner v Moir [1975] 1 All ER 849
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 224 of 2011)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Coca-Cola Beverages Uganda Limited v Bukusu Constructors Limited (Civil Suit No. 1316 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 96 (31 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.