Wakilii

Corsu Rehabilitation Hospital v Sinco Medical Supplies Ltd [2026] UGCOMMC 348

High Court · 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, heard ex parte after the defendant failed to appear or file a trial bundle
Decision
Suit succeeded; defendant ordered to refund the purchase price of UGX 86,980,000, pay general damages of UGX 10,000,000, interest and 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

The court held that a supplier who delivers equipment that develops defects within the warranty period, and who fails to effect a lasting repair or offer replacement, commits a breach of contract. On unrebutted ex parte evidence that both autoclave machines failed to attain required sterilisation temperature, pressure and cycle parameters after installation and after attempted repairs, the defendant was liable. The plaintiff recovered the full purchase price of UGX 86,980,000 as the machines were not fit for purpose and no alternative remedy was offered, plus general damages of UGX 10,000,000 for operational inconvenience, interest at 10% per annum on the decretal sum from filing, 6% per annum on general damages from judgment, and costs.

Outcome

Suit succeeded; defendant ordered to refund the purchase price of UGX 86,980,000, pay general damages of UGX 10,000,000, interest and costs

Facts

By a Local Purchase Order of 3 January 2023, the defendant agreed to supply the plaintiff hospital with two 200-litre meditry steam autoclave sterilisers at UGX 43,490,000 each, totalling UGX 86,980,000. The plaintiff paid 50% in advance on 18 January 2023 and the balance after delivery on 13 June 2023. Installation followed on 19 June 2023, and the machines carried a one-year warranty expiring 13 June 2024. The autoclaves were procured to sterilise surgical instruments, requiring saturated steam at 134 degrees Celsius and 30 PSI. One unit malfunctioned almost immediately after installation, while the other failed around 20 January 2024. Defects included failure to attain and maintain sterilisation temperature and pressure, low steam generation, interrupted sterilisation cycles, inadequate drying and repeated control panel errors, compromising patient safety and infection control. The plaintiff notified the defendant by emails of 23 and 31 January 2024; the defendant responded on 2 February 2024 and sent a technician on 11 May 2024 who replaced seals and gaskets, calibrated and reset the machines. The malfunctions persisted. The defendant blamed poor water quality and mishandling by the plaintiff's staff but adduced no evidence, the matter having proceeded ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant was liable for breach of contract by supplying autoclave machines that were defective and unfit for their intended purpose.
  2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the purchase price of UGX 86,980,000 as a result of the breach.
  3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the remedies sought in the plaint, namely a declaration, general damages, interest and costs.

Orders

  • It is hereby declared that the Defendant breached the contract between it and the Plaintiff.
  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff UGX 86,980,000/= being the purchase price for the supplied machines.
  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff general damages of UGX 10,000,000/=.
  • The Defendant shall pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the sum in (2) above, from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • The Defendant shall pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on general damages from the date of Judgment until payment in full.
  • The costs of the suit are awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach — Supply of Goods Not Fit for Purpose
A supplier breaches a contract for the supply and installation of equipment where the goods delivered contain defects that prevent them from performing to the operational standard for which they were procured, and the supplier fails, without legal excuse, to provide a lasting remedy.
Commercial Law — Warranty — Defects Arising Within Warranty Period
Where defects in supplied equipment manifest within the warranty period, the buyer is entitled to a permanent solution, and an unsuccessful repair does not discharge the supplier's contractual obligation.
Contract Law — Remedies — Recovery of Purchase Price
A buyer who has paid the full purchase price may recover it in full where the goods supplied are not fit for their intended purpose and the supplier demonstrates no intention to replace them or provide an alternative remedy.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Unrebutted Evidence in Ex Parte Proceedings
A party asserting facts on which a legal right or liability depends must prove them on a balance of probabilities; assertions raised in a written statement of defence but unsupported by evidence at trial cannot rebut the opposing party's proved evidence.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment for Commercial Inconvenience
General damages are compensatory and awarded at the court's discretion, guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience suffered and the nature and extent of the breach, and require evidence of the damage sustained.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Discretion Under Civil Procedure Act s.26(2)
Interest is awarded at the judicious discretion of the court in what is just and reasonable in the circumstances, and a party deprived of the use of its money is entitled to be compensated by an award of interest on the decretal sum from the date of filing suit.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (12)

  • John Bwiza v Patrick Yowasi Kadama (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2011)
  • Sharif Osman v Haji Haruna Mulangwa (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1995)
  • William Kasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd (Civil Suit No. 1326 of 2000)
  • Meridiana Africa Airlines (U) Ltd v Avmax Spares (EA) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 111 of 2017)
  • Omega Bank Plc Vs O.B.C Limited [2005] 8 NWLR (pt.928) 547
  • Fina Bank Ltd Vs Spares and Industries Ltd [2000] 1 EA 52
  • Kabandize John Baptist and 21 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2016)
  • Takiya Kashwahiri & Anor v Kajungu Denis (Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank Vs Deo Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation (U) Ltd and Another (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
  • Wallersteiner Vs Moir [1975] 1 All ER 849
  • Uganda Development Bank Vs Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] H.C.B 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Corsu Rehabilitation Hospital v Sinco Medical Supplies Ltd [2026] UGCommC 348 (30 June 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.