Wakilii

Coil Limited v Dhanush Forwarders (K) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 512 of 2019)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 486 · 2025 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, heard exparte after defendant failed to appear
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant with awards of special damages, general damages, interest, and costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 a valid and enforceable contract existed between the parties for transportation and customs clearance services, established through invoice, witness testimony, and conduct. The defendant breached the contract by delaying customs clearance, failing to return containers and flatbed truck timely, and placing an illegal caveat on the equipment. The court awarded special damages totalling UGX 2,621,960, USD 10,654, and KES 210,888 for demurrage, storage, and related charges; general damages of UGX 30,000,000; interest at 20% per annum on general damages from filing date; and costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant with awards of special damages, general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

Coil Limited established a concrete batching plant at Wadelai, Nebbi District, and imported a boom pump for the works. In early 2019, the plaintiff instructed Dhanush Forwarders (K) Ltd to transport the equipment from Mombasa to Kampala and handle customs clearance. The defendant transported the machinery to Kampala where it was bonded at Livercot ICD Namanve. The defendant delayed the clearing process and failed to ensure timely return of containers and flatbed truck to shippers, resulting in demurrage charges of USD 8,946 and USD 2,088 invoiced to the plaintiff. Livercot ICD also invoiced the plaintiff for storage charges, bond fees, service fees, and forklift hire totalling UGX 2,621,960. The defendant placed a caveat on the boom pump at Livercot ICD, preventing the plaintiff from taking possession. The plaintiff paid the demurrage and storage charges. The defendant filed a defence but failed to attend court, and the matter proceeded exparte.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a valid and enforceable contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.
  2. Whether the defendant breached the contract by failing to undertake customs clearance process and timely return of the containers and Flatbed Truck to the shippers.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Special damages awarded: UGX 2,621,960 for storage charges, bond fees, service fees and fees for the hire of the fork lift to lift the spare parts box, imposed by Livercot ICD.
  • Special damages awarded: USD 8,566 and Kenya Shillings 210,888 as demurrage charges to Ocean Freight (EA) Ltd.
  • Special damages awarded: USD 2,088 being shipping line detention charges.
  • General damages awarded in the sum of UGX 30,000,000.
  • Interest on general damages at 20% per annum from date of filing until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation of Contract — Informal Agreements — Reconstruction from Conduct and Documentation
A contract can be reconstructed from a series of exchanges including communications and actions between parties. In the absence of a formal written agreement, emails, text messages, letters, documented conversations, receipts, and corroborated discussions may collectively demonstrate the existence of mutual assent, the terms agreed upon, and the intent to be legally bound.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Definition and Elements
Breach of a contract is the violation of a contractual obligation by failing to perform one's own promise, by repudiating it, or by interfering with another party's performance. Where a contract is executed by the parties, it creates binding and enforceable obligations on either party which cannot be avoided unless the contract is void or against public policy.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Exparte Proceedings
Even in exparte proceedings where the defendant adduces no evidence, the legal and evidential burden continues to rest squarely on the plaintiff. It is incumbent upon the plaintiff to establish, on the balance of probabilities, each and every fact asserted within their claim.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Proof Requirements
Special damages must be claimed with particularity and strictly proved. Evidence tendered must demonstrate a precise calculation aligned with the pleadings, enabling the court proper access to the basis of such claim. Special damages refer to losses specifically attributable to the particular circumstances of the case and must be proven with exactitude.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment Principles
The award of general damages is in the discretion of the court in respect of what the law presumes to be the natural and probable consequence of the defendant's act or omission. General damages are at large, meaning the court, taking all relevant circumstances into account, will reach an intuitive assessment of the loss which it considers the plaintiff has sustained.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (14)

  • Kizito v David Kizito Kanonya and 7 Others (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2018)
  • Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2017 between Raila Amolo Odinga & Another vs. IEBC & 2 Others (2017) eKLR
  • Printing and Numerical Registering Co. v Simpson (1875) LR 19 Eq 462
  • Behange v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (2000) 1 E.A 20
  • Mugabi John v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 133 of 2002)
  • W.M Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration [1984] HCB
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 13 of 1993)
  • Erukana Kuwe v Isaac Patrick Matovu and another (Civil Suit No. 177 of 2003)
  • Wainwright v Fontenot, 774 So. 2d 70 (2000)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1894) 9 Exch 341
  • Takiya Kashwahiri & Anor v Kajungu Denis (Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Charles Acire v M. Engola (Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Kenford Co. v County of Erie, 73 NY 2d 312

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Coil Limited v Dhanush Forwarders (K) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 512 of 2019) [2025] UGCommC 486 (22 October 2025)
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.