Wakilii

Dada Cycles Ltd v Sofitra SPRL Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 656 of 2005)

High Court · [2012] UGCOMMC 46 · 2012 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 defendant's counsel withdrew
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff with damages 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 found the defendant carrier liable for breach of contract for failing to deliver a container of bicycle spare parts from Mombasa to Kampala. The court awarded special damages for the value of goods (USD 17,344.50) and travel expenses (USD 535), plus general damages of UGX 30,000,000 for inconvenience, with interest. The court rejected the claim for lost profits of USD 4,000 as unproven speculation, holding that special damages must be strictly proved with documentary evidence of previous profit margins.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with damages and costs awarded

Facts

In January 2005, Dada Cycles Ltd contracted with Sofitra SPRL Ltd to transport a container of bicycle spare parts from Mombasa to Kampala, with payment of USD 3,400 due on delivery within approximately two weeks. The defendant failed to deliver within the anticipated period. On 1 July 2005, the defendant promised delivery by 15 July 2005 subject to KRA waiver approval, and on 26 July 2005 made another written commitment after the plaintiff's General Manager travelled to Mombasa. Despite these commitments, the container was never delivered. The defendant filed a Written Statement of Defence blaming a third-party shipping line and claiming the plaintiff failed to pay USD 1,500 for accumulated demurrage and storage charges. The defendant's counsel subsequently withdrew, and after substituted service by newspaper advertisement, the case proceeded ex parte. The plaintiff claimed USD 51,911.50 in special damages including the value of goods (USD 17,344.50), expected net profit (USD 4,000), travel expenses, accommodation, and telephone costs, plus general damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant is liable for non-delivery of the container and value of the goods.
  2. Whether the defendant is liable for lost profits.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff.
  • Special damages awarded: USD 17,344.50 being value of the goods.
  • Special damages awarded: USD 535 being travel expenses.
  • General damages awarded: UGX 30,000,000.
  • Interest awarded on the value of goods at 10% per annum from date of filing suit until payment in full.
  • Interest awarded on travel expenses and general damages at court rate from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Carrier's Duty to Deliver — Reasonable Time
At common law, a carrier, whether common or private, must deliver goods at the agreed time, or if no time has been agreed, within a reasonable time. Where a carriage agreement does not specify delivery time and the carrier represents that delivery will occur within two weeks, failure to deliver within that timeframe constitutes breach of contract.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Defences — Charges Arising from Carrier's Own Delay
A carrier cannot rely on demurrage and storage charges as a defence to non-delivery where those charges accumulated as a result of the carrier's own failure to deliver goods in time. Such a defence is only available if the charges had accumulated prior to the time the carrier was contracted to deliver the goods.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Lost Profits — Burden of Proof
A claim for lost profits as special damages must be supported by documentary evidence showing the basis for the alleged profit margin, such as records of previous transactions demonstrating consistent profits within that margin. Without such evidence, an alleged profit figure remains speculation and cannot be awarded.
Evidence — Special Damages — Standard of Proof — Strict Proof Required
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved by the party claiming them. The court cannot take judicial notice of expenses allegedly incurred without supporting documentary evidence, even where the fact of travel is established.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Breach of Contract — Inconvenience and Disappointment
General damages for breach of contract are compensatory and aim to restore the aggrieved party to the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. Where a carrier fails to deliver commercial goods, the plaintiff is entitled to general damages for grave disappointment and inconvenience caused to the business.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Rationale for Award — Defendant's Use of Plaintiff's Money
The basis for awarding interest is that the defendant has kept the plaintiff out of their money and has had use of it. Where parties have not agreed on an interest rate and the court awards interest in its discretion, the rate should reflect the nature of the transaction, with a higher rate appropriate for deprivation of trade goods held in foreign currency.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (13)

  • Printing & Numerical Registering Company v Sampson (1875) LR 19 Eq 462
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006)
  • Kabona Brothers Agencies v Uganda Metal Products & Enameling Co Ltd [1981-82] HCB 74
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex 341
  • Robbialac Paints (U) Ltd v K.B Construction Limited [1976] HCB 45
  • Dr Vincent Karuhanga t/a Friends Polyclinic v NIC & URA (High Court Civil Suit No. 2002 of [year])
  • Rosetta Cooper v Gerald Neville and Another [1961] E.A 63
  • Eladam Enterprises Ltd v SGS (U) Ltd & Others (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002)
  • KCC Vs Nakaye (1972) EA 446
  • Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] 2 All ER 5
  • Masembe v Sugar Corporation and Another [2002] EA 434
  • Hambutt's Plasticine Limited v Wayne Tank and Pump Company Ltd [1970] 1 QB 447
  • Bank of Baroda v Wilson Buyonja Kamugunda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dada Cycles Ltd v Sofitra SPRL Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 656 of 2005) [2012] UGCommC 46 (15 May 2012)
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.