Country Bakeries Ltd v International Organisation For Migration (Civil Suit No. 35 of 2012)
Observed later treatment
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
Court held that no breach of services agreement occurred where defendant contributed 87% of agreed value through equipment in working condition, despite one faulty machine being manufacturer's fault. Plaintiff's claim for lost profits from cash-flow projection was foreign to agreement's non-commercial social purpose of employing vulnerable ex-combatant youth. Suit dismissed.
Outcome
Suit dismissed in full — no breach of contract proved
Facts
Country Bakeries Ltd operated Teng Piny Farming Enterprises in Gulu. IOM, an international organization rehabilitating vulnerable ex-combatant youth from the Lord's Resistance Army in Northern Uganda, entered a Services Agreement with plaintiff on 22 September 2009. Plaintiff agreed to house, feed and employ 50 vulnerable youth initially for 6 months, with possibility of employing 100 more long-term. IOM agreed to provide up to USD 30,000 in-kind or cash contributions: a Canter Two-Tonne truck, peanut butter machine, peanut sheller, and 3-in-1 oil press. Equipment valued at USD 29,400 was provided (plaintiff contributed USD 3,400 towards truck). In June 2010, the 3-in-1 oil press (valued USD 4,000) arrived in poor condition and required return to South Africa for repair. Technician confirmed peanut butter machine and sheller were functional. Agreement ended on or about 20 July 2010 per amendment dated 15 April 2010. IOM assigned the truck, peanut butter machine and sheller to plaintiff. Only 34 youth were employed, not the planned 50. Plaintiff sued for breach claiming lost profits based on cash-flow projection not included in agreement annexures.
Issues
- Whether the Defendant breached the terms of the Services Agreement.
- What remedies are available to the Plaintiff.
Orders
- Suit dismissed.
- Plaintiff to bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 Rule 1(3)(c)
- Company Act s.20
Cases cited (1)
- Ronald Kasibante v Shell (U) Ltd (No. 546 of 2006)
Cases citing this judgment (5)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.