Wakilii

David Muhizi t/a M.M. Enterprises v Nile Breweries Limited (HCCS 52 of 1993)

High Court · [1994] UGHC 179 · 1994 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 with interlocutory judgment entered for failure to enter appearance
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff with specific performance or damages in lieu, general damages, interest 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

Held that a valid contract existed whereby plaintiff deposited 755 empty beer crates with defendant in exchange for beer supply as agent or stockist. Defendant breached the contract by refusing to supply beer and failing to return the crates on demand. Plaintiff entitled to return of crates or their current market value, plus general damages calculated as the difference between current value and value at time of breach, amounting to UGX 4,379,000, to place plaintiff in the position as if no breach had occurred.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with specific performance or damages in lieu, general damages, interest and costs awarded

Facts

In 1988 defendant appointed plaintiff as agent or stockist under an agreement. Under the terms, defendant would supply plaintiff with beer on condition that plaintiff deposited empty beer crates. Between 1988 and 1989, plaintiff deposited 755 empty crates with defendant. Defendant subsequently failed to supply beer to plaintiff. Plaintiff demanded return of his 755 crates or their value. Defendant neither returned the crates nor paid their value. Defendant was served with summons on 5 January 1994 but failed to enter appearance or file written statement of defence. Plaintiff obtained interlocutory judgment on 15 February 1994 under Order 9 rule 6 Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a valid contract between the plaintiff and the defendant
  2. Whether there was a breach of that contract by the defendant
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed

Orders

  • The defendant is to return to the plaintiff 755 empty crates of bottles of beer or he is to pay the plaintiff the current market value of 755 empty crates of bottles of beer.
  • The defendant is to pay to the plaintiff general damages totalling UGX 4,379,000.
  • The defendant is to pay interest on the above at court rate from date of judgment until payment in full (interest on crates only payable if defendant elects to pay value rather than return crates).
  • The defendant is to pay costs of this suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation — Agency and Stockist Agreements — Deposit of Property as Contractual Condition
A valid contract exists where a plaintiff deposits empty crates with a defendant brewery on condition that the defendant supplies beer to the plaintiff as agent or stockist, and both parties perform their obligations over a period of time.
Contract Law — Breach — Repudiation — Failure to Perform and Retention of Property
A defendant breaches a contract by refusing or failing to supply goods as agreed and by retaining the plaintiff's deposited property after demand for return has been made.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Measure of Damages — Breach of Contract — Difference in Value Over Time
The measure of general damages for breach of contract is the difference between the current value of property wrongfully retained and its value at the time the defendant refused to return it, calculated to place the plaintiff in the same position as if there had been no breach.
Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Interlocutory Judgment — Assessment of Damages
Where a defendant fails to enter appearance after service of summons, the court may enter interlocutory judgment under Order 9 rule 6 Civil Procedure Rules and proceed to assess damages.
Contract Law — Remedies — Specific Performance or Payment of Value — Election by Defendant
Where a defendant has wrongfully retained the plaintiff's property, the court may order specific performance in the form of return of the property or alternatively payment of its current market value at the defendant's election.

Legislation cited (1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

David Muhizi t_a M.M. Enterprises v Nile Breweries Limited (HCCS 52 of 1993) [1994] UGHC 179 (26 May 1994)
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.