Wakilii

Diamond Glass Mart Limited and Lubega Ibrahim Kato v Haji Moses Kigongo and Mosa Courts Apartments Limited (Civil Suit No. 1061 of 2020)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 36 · 2026 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract and conversion arising from a supply and install contract for aluminium doors and windows
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiffs; counterclaim dismissed; defendants ordered to pay outstanding contractual sums, damages for conversion, interest, and costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 court held that the first plaintiff did not breach the supply and install contract for aluminium doors and windows. The first defendant's unilateral introduction of a requirement for bullet-proof glass, not specified in the original contract, constituted a material breach by the defendant. The first defendant's conduct in permitting installation of the aluminium frames after inspection constituted acceptance under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, precluding later rejection. The court applied the prevention principle, holding that a party cannot rely on their own breach to terminate a contract or claim damages. Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs with recovery of outstanding contractual sums and damages for conversion of personal effects.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiffs; counterclaim dismissed; defendants ordered to pay outstanding contractual sums, damages for conversion, interest, and costs

Facts

The first plaintiff, a company dealing in fabrication and installation of metallic doors and windows, entered into a contract dated 27th May 2019 with the first defendant to supply and install aluminium doors and window frames worth shs. 120,000,000/= at the defendant's residential house and ten cottages at Maya, Mpigi District. The contract specified aluminium frames of 3mm thickness at the bottom and 2mm on the sides. When the plaintiff travelled to China to purchase materials, he found frames of those exact dimensions were no longer manufactured. With approval from the defendant's agent, he purchased frames of 2mm at the bottom and 1.2mm to 1.5mm on the sides. The materials arrived in January 2020 and were inspected by the defendant's technical team, who found them non-compliant but permitted installation on a tentative basis. Installation was completed on all ten cottages and the main house, except for glass fitting. The defendant then stopped work, claiming the frames could not support bullet-proof glass, which had not been specified in the original contract. The defendant paid shs. 83,250,000/= of the contract price. The plaintiff also claimed the defendant retained personal effects worth shs. 16,700,000/= that had been shipped in the same container as the aluminium frames.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants are indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of shs. 129,402,000/=.
  2. Whether the plaintiffs breached the contract between them and the defendants for the supply and fitting of aluminium doors and windows.
  3. Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies prayed for.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the 1st plaintiff against the 1st defendant for shs. 26,750,000/= under the contract of 27th May, 2019.
  • Interest on the award at 20% per annum from 10th December, 2020 until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit and counterclaim awarded to the 1st plaintiff.
  • Judgment entered for the 1st plaintiff against the 2nd defendant for shs. 31,270,000/= in respect of transactions pre-dating the contract of 27th May, 2019.
  • Interest on the award at 20% per annum from 10th December, 2020 until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit and counterclaim awarded to the 1st plaintiff.
  • Judgment entered for the 2nd plaintiff against the 1st defendant for shs. 16,700,000/= in respect of personal effects retained by the 1st defendant.
  • General damages for conversion awarded to the 2nd plaintiff in the sum of shs. 6,000,000/=.
  • Interest on the awards at 8% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit and counterclaim awarded to the 2nd plaintiff.
  • The 1st defendant's counterclaim dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Supply and Install Contracts — Implied Warranties — Materials and Workmanship
In a contract for fabrication, supply and installation of metal works where the contractor does not assume design responsibility, the implied warranty as to fitness for purpose will usually only relate to the supplied materials and the workmanship. A contractor impliedly warrants that the materials supplied will be of good and proper quality, unless displaced by express terms or other circumstances.
Building Contracts — Deviations from Specifications — Acquiescence and Ratification
An unapproved deviation in material specifications in a building contract may be ratified by a party's conduct of acquiescence. Acquiescence occurs when a party with a right, seeing another party commit an act infringing upon that right, stands by in a manner that induces the infringing party to believe that the act is assented to, thereby legally binding them to the change despite lack of formal prior approval.
Sale of Goods — Acceptance of Goods — Effect of Incorporation into Structure
Where materials are delivered on site before inspection, if the owner of the project takes possession of the materials and acts in a manner that constitutes acceptance under section 43 of The Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, the owner is taken to have accepted the material and that acceptance is binding and not merely provisional. Authorising materials to be incorporated into the structure of a building constitutes acceptance of obvious defects that could have been discovered through reasonable inspection.
Construction Contracts — Standard of Workmanship — Good and Workmanlike Manner
The standard of 'good and workmanlike manner' is attained when that degree of efficiency and knowledge which is possessed by those of ordinary skill, competency, and standing in a particular trade or business for which the contractor is employed is achieved. This requires performing services with the quality, skill, and diligence expected of a proficient professional in that specific trade.
Breach of Contract — Unilateral Introduction of New Specifications — Prevention Principle
The unilateral introduction of a specification into a supply and install contract that renders completion impossible constitutes a material breach of contract by the party introducing it. Under the prevention principle, a party cannot take advantage of the non-fulfilment of a condition if they themselves hindered its performance, and a party cannot rely on their own breach of contract to terminate it or claim damages.
Privity of Contract — Third Party Rights and Liabilities
The doctrine of privity prevents a third party from suing on a contract to which he or she is not a party. A contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person except the parties to it. A third party may not enforce a contract except where it was made expressly for his or her benefit in such circumstances that it was intended to be enforceable by him or her.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (29)

  • Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge Ltd [1915] AC 847
  • Drive Yourself Hire Co (London) Ltd v Strutt [1954] 1 QB 250
  • Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58
  • Gloucester County Council v Richardson [1967] 3 All ER 458
  • Bajaj Healthcare Ltd v Fine Organics Ltd [2019] EWHC 2316
  • Evans v Tiger Investments Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 161
  • De Bussche v Alt (1878) 8 Ch D 286
  • The Courtyard RTM Co Ltd v Rockwell (FC103) Limited [2025] UKUT 39
  • Marjandi Ltd v Bon Accord Glass Ltd [1998] ScotSC 55
  • Lictor Anstalt v Mir Steel UK Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1397
  • Rendlesham Estates plc v Barr Ltd [2014] EWHC 3968 (TCC)
  • Langley v GMB [2020] EWHC 3619
  • Friend v Institution of Professional Managers and Specialists [1999] IRLR 173
  • Lendlease Construction (Europe) Ltd v Aecom Limited [2023] EWHC 2620 (TCC)
  • Borham-Carter v Hyde Park Hotel [1948] 64 TLR
  • Masaka Municipal Council v Semogerere [1998-2000] HCB 23
  • Musoke David v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board [1990-1994] EA 219
  • Roberts v The Bury Improvement Commissioner [1870] LR 5 CP 310
  • Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd [2007] EWHC 447 (TCC)
  • TMF Trustee Ltd v Fire Navigation Inc [2019] EWHC 2918
  • PBS Energo AS v Bester Generacion UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 223 (TCC)
  • Cheall v Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff (APEX) [1983] 2 AC 180
  • Trollope & Colls Ltd v North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board [1973] 2 All ER 260
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
  • Charles Acire v M Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Paul Mwebe Bwogi v Kenneth Bwogi (High Court Civil Suit No. 103 of 2019)
  • Harriet Arinaitwe v Africana Clays Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 376 of 2013)
  • Spring Freight Logistics Limited v Amoo Holding International Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 556 of 2019)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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

↓ Download PDF

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

Diamond Glass Mart Limited and Lubega Ibrahim Kato v Haji Moses Kigongo and Mosa Courts Apartments Limited (Civil Suit No. 1061 of 2020) [2026] UGCommC 36 (10 February 2026)
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.