Wakilii

Company Profiles Uganda Ltd v Mansoor Nyera t a Digital Tec M S Digital Tech Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CA 4 of 2007)

High Court · [2008] UGCOMMC 12 · 2008 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Mengo Chief Magistrate's Court judgment dismissing the appellant's claim for advertising fees and finding breach of contract by the appellant
Decision
Appeal partly allowed; appellant entitled to payment of Ushs.300,000 less Ushs.50,000 nominal damages; respondent liable for two-thirds of costs below and all costs of appeal

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 allowed the appeal in part. The appellant had substantially performed the advertising contract by publishing the advert, and the respondent breached by not paying the agreed fee of Shs.300,000. Minor omissions in the advert (absence of website development business reference) did not defeat the appellant's right to payment under the doctrine of substantial performance, but entitled the respondent to nominal damages of Shs.50,000 as a price reduction. The respondent's counterclaim for additional missing details (telephone numbers, website business) did not constitute a departure from pleadings under Order 6 Rule 6 CPR.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed; appellant entitled to payment of Ushs.300,000 less Ushs.50,000 nominal damages; respondent liable for two-thirds of costs below and all costs of appeal

Facts

The appellant, an advertising company, placed an advert for the respondents in its 2003 Company Profiles directory edition at an agreed charge of Ushs.300,000. The respondents, engaged in mobile phone repair and website design, did not pay for the advert. The respondents counterclaimed that the appellant breached contract by omitting the shop number from the advert. At trial, the respondents additionally complained that two telephone numbers and reference to their website development business were missing. The trial magistrate found the appellant in breach for not including all particulars from the order form, dismissed the claim for payment, and awarded costs to the respondents. The appellant appealed on four grounds.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate erred in finding that the appellant and not the respondent had breached the contract.
  2. Whether the trial magistrate erred in evaluating the evidence and disregarding the fact that the appellant had published the advert.
  3. Whether the trial magistrate erred in allowing the respondent to depart from their pleadings by introducing new alleged causes of action.
  4. Whether the trial magistrate erred in awarding costs to the respondent.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part.
  • Respondents ordered to pay the appellant Ushs.300,000 for the published advert.
  • Appellant awarded nominal damages of Ushs.50,000 to be set off against the main claim for the minor breach (omission of website development business).
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant.
  • Appellant awarded two-thirds of the costs in the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Substantial Performance — Minor Omissions — Right to Payment
Where one party has substantially completed performance of a contract leaving only a minor omission or fault, the court may accept such performance as discharging the party's obligations, subject to the innocent party's right to deduct a sum to cover the fault.
Contract Law — Payment Terms — Implied Terms — Service Contracts
In a contract for services where there is no express term as to when payment is to be made, the court will imply a term that payment shall be made before the service is provided unless the contrary can be shown. Where the service is provided, the service provider is entitled to immediately claim payment.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Assessment — Main Claim and Counterclaim
In adjudicating claims for breach of contract where there is both a main suit and a counterclaim, the court should treat each claim separately and not mix them up. A finding of breach in the counterclaim does not negate a finding of breach in the main suit.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Departure from Pleadings — Consistency
Under Order 6 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a party may introduce additional evidence at trial that is consistent with the original pleadings without constituting a departure from pleadings or introducing a new cause of action, provided the additional matters are not inconsistent with the previous pleadings.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Duty of First Appellate Court
A first appellate court is under a duty to subject the entire evidence on record to exhaustive scrutiny and to re-evaluate and make its own conclusion, while bearing in mind that the court never observed the witnesses under cross-examination so as to test their veracity.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Sanyu Lwanga Musoke v Sam Galiwango (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1995)
  • Pandya v R [1958] EA 336
  • Selle v Associated Boat Co [1968] EA 223
  • Fam International Ltd v Mohammed Hamid El-Fathih (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Company Profiles Uganda Ltd v Mansoor Nyera t a Digital Tec M S Digital Tech Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CA 4 of 2007) [2008] UGCommC 12 (13 February 2008)
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.