Wakilii

Daniel Lual Machot Duol v Harminder Singh (Civil Suit No. 0108 of 2021)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 275 · 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 and recovery of deposit
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with declaration of breach, monetary awards, 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 High Court held that the defendant breached the Memorandum of Understanding by failing to deliver goods by the agreed date and by delivering a P3 paver tile plant machine that was unfit for purpose due to mechanical defects. The court found that a subsequent MOU extinguished the prior oral agreement, and the plaintiff waived claims under that earlier contract. The defendant's counterclaim for the balance of the purchase price failed due to lack of particularisation and non-delivery of all contracted goods. The plaintiff was awarded refunds, special damages, general damages, and interest.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with declaration of breach, monetary awards, and costs

Facts

In October 2018, the plaintiff and defendant entered into an oral agreement for the sale of machinery including a P3 paver tile plant, generator, truck, forklift, and container for USD 61,000. The plaintiff paid USD 45,500 as a deposit. The defendant failed to deliver by December 2018. In September 2019, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding varying the delivery date to 15th November 2019. The defendant began deliveries on 16th November 2019, one day late, and delivered all goods except the container. When the P3 paver tile plant was assembled and tested in Juba, South Sudan in March 2020, it was found to have mechanical defects including an old non-functional gearbox and worn conveyor belt. The plaintiff rejected the machine and sought a refund. The defendant counterclaimed for the balance of USD 8,500.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant breached the terms of the contract and the Memorandum of Understanding.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is liable to pay the defendant's balance of USD 8,500.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Declaration that the defendant breached the Memorandum of Understanding by failing to deliver goods by 15th November 2019 and by delivering a P3 paver tile plant machine unfit for purpose.
  • Plaintiff awarded USD 4,500 with interest at 17% per annum from 21st November 2018 until payment in full.
  • Plaintiff awarded special damages of USD 21,000 with interest at 17% per annum from 21st November 2018 until payment in full.
  • Plaintiff awarded special damages of UGX 30,000,000 with interest at 17% per annum from 16th November 2019 until payment in full.
  • Plaintiff awarded general damages of UGX 40,000,000 with interest at 13% per annum from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Variation and Discharge — Effect of Subsequent Agreement
Where parties execute a Memorandum of Understanding containing an entire agreement clause and a waiver of prior delays, the MOU extinguishes and discharges any and all prior agreements between the parties, creating a clean slate for their relationship.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Time as Essential Term
Where parties clearly stipulate a date by which goods ought to be delivered in their contract, time becomes an essential component of their agreement, and failure to deliver by that date constitutes a breach of contract.
Sale of Goods — Implied Conditions — Fitness for Purpose
Under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 2017, there are implied conditions in every contract of sale that goods delivered shall match the description agreed, be of merchantable quality, and be fit for purpose. A seller's duty to deliver goods fit for purpose is not complete until the buyer has a reasonable opportunity to inspect and test the goods.
Sale of Goods — Payment — Concurrent Conditions
Unless otherwise agreed, delivery of goods and payment of the price are concurrent conditions. A seller is only entitled to the price when he delivers the goods in respect of that price, and where goods are not delivered or are delivered defective, the seller cannot recover the full purchase price.
Damages — Special Damages — Pleading and Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and particularised. A claim for a balance on a purchase price that is not particularised to show which goods it relates to, and which contains unexplained discrepancies in the amount claimed, will be rejected for lack of proper pleading.
Damages — Exemplary Damages — Exceptional Remedy
Exemplary damages are awarded with restraint and only in exceptional cases to punish egregious, highhanded, vindictive, oppressive or malicious conduct. Mere delay in performance followed by substantial compliance does not justify an award of exemplary damages.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (11)

  • Mogas Uganda Limited v Benzina Uganda Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 88 of 2013)
  • Mwesigye Warren v Kiiza Ben (High Court Civil Suit No. 320 of 2015)
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Hajji Yahaya Sekalega (High Court Civil Suit No. 185 of 2009)
  • Opia Moses v Chukia Lumago Roselyn & 5 Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 0022 of 2013)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Bank of Uganda v Fred William Masaba & 5 Ors (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1998)
  • Ahmed El Termewy v Hassan Awdi & 3 Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 95 of 2012)
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 0224 of 2011)
  • Kwizera Eddie v Attorney General (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 01 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Daniel Lual Machot Duol v Harminder Singh (Civil Suit No. 0108 of 2021) [2025] UGCommC 275 (29 July 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.