Wakilii

David Muhizi V Nile Breweries Limited (Civil Suit No.52 of 1993)

High Court · [1994] UGHC 22 · 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 following interlocutory judgment entered after defendant's failure to enter appearance
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff with order for return of property or payment of value plus general damages

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 between plaintiff and defendant whereby plaintiff deposited empty beer crates with defendant in exchange for beer supply as agent or stockist. Defendant breached the contract by failing to supply beer and refusing to return the 755 deposited crates. Plaintiff entitled to return of crates or their current market value, plus general damages measured as the difference between current value and value at time of breach, calculated at UGX 4,379,000.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with order for return of property or payment of value plus general damages

Facts

In 1988, defendant appointed plaintiff as agent or stockist under an agreement requiring plaintiff to deposit empty beer crates in exchange for beer supply. Plaintiff deposited 755 empty crates with defendant between 1988 and 1989. Defendant subsequently failed to supply beer to plaintiff. Plaintiff demanded return of the 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. Interlocutory judgment was entered by District Registrar on 15 February 1994. Matter came before High Court for assessment of damages.

Issues

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

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation — Valid Contract — Agent/Stockist Agreement
A valid contract exists where one party agrees to deposit goods with another party in exchange for supply of products as agent or stockist, and the terms are respected by both parties over a period of time.
Contract Law — Breach — Failure to Supply Goods and Return of Deposited Property
A party breaches a contract where it fails to supply goods as agreed and refuses or fails to return deposited property after demand has been made.
Damages & Quantum — Measure of Damages — Breach of Contract — Return of Property or Current Value
Where a party breaches a contract by retaining deposited property, the innocent party is entitled to the return of the property or its current market value, with damages measured to put the plaintiff in the same position as if there had been no breach.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Calculation — Difference Between Current Value and Value at Time of Breach
General damages for breach of contract involving retention of property may be calculated as the difference between the current market value of the property and its value at the time the defendant refused to return it, multiplied by the quantity of items retained.

Legislation cited (1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

David Muhizi V Nile Breweries Limited (Civil Suit No.52 of 1993) [1994] UGHC 22 (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.