Wakilii

Dr. E. Kigonya v Margaret Naiga (Civil Suit No. 456 of 1991)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 133 · 1992 Judgment for Plaintiff — Interest and Costs Awarded AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for refund of purchase price following sale by party without good title
Decision
Plaintiff awarded interest on refunded purchase price and costs; principal sum had been paid before final hearing

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 where a defendant sold land without good title and delayed refunding the purchase price despite demands, the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the principal sum at 25% per annum from the date of original payment until the date the refund was credited. The defence of estoppel failed because the material facts supporting estoppel were not pleaded. The plaintiff was also entitled to costs, as the suit was justified by the defendant's initial denial of liability in pleadings and delay in payment.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded interest on refunded purchase price and costs; principal sum had been paid before final hearing

Facts

The plaintiff purchased Plot 1059 Block 244 Kyadondo from the defendant for UGX 8,500,000, paying UGX 500,000 on 19th July 1990 and the balance of UGX 8,000,000 on 14th September 1990. A special certificate of title was handed over in the name of Reuben Amooti Karugaba. It was subsequently discovered that the defendant had no title to the land, having purchased it from an impostor named Kafumbe (not Karugaba). The plaintiff demanded a refund. After negotiations and a demand letter requiring payment by 18th June 1991, the defendant did not pay by that date. The plaintiff filed suit on 2nd July 1991. The defendant initially denied liability in her written statements of defence but eventually paid the principal sum of UGX 8,500,000 on 31st January 1992, which was credited to the plaintiff's account on 7th February 1992. The dispute centered on whether interest and costs should be awarded.

Issues

  1. Whether interest as prayed for in the plaint is payable by the defendant to the plaintiff now that the principal sum has been paid to the plaintiff by the defendant on or about 7th February 1992.
  2. Whether costs of the suit are payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from claiming interest having accepted a refund of UGX 8,500,000 without interest.
  4. Whether the plaintiff's suit was necessary given the defendant's alleged willingness to pay the principal sum.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff interest at the rate of 25% per annum on the principal sum of UGX 8,500,000 from 14th September 1990 to 7th February 1992.
  • Costs of this action awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Sale of Land — Lack of Title — Right to Refund
Where a vendor sells land but has no good title because she purchased from an impostor, she cannot pass any better title to the purchaser and the purchaser is entitled to a refund of the purchase price.
Interest — Award of Interest — Civil Procedure Act s.26(2)
Under Section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court may order interest at such rate as it deems reasonable on the principal sum adjudged from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, and further interest on the aggregate sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment.
Interest — Rate of Interest — Factors to Consider
In determining a reasonable rate of interest, the court may take into account that the plaintiff had to borrow money at bank interest rates, that the money was affected by inflation, and that the defendant as a business person had the benefit and use of the plaintiff's money for a substantial period.
Estoppel — Requirements for Estoppel — Evidence Act s.113
Under Section 113 of the Evidence Act, for estoppel to operate, a party must have by declaration, act or omission intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief. The representations must be a promise in clear and unambiguous words or conduct.
Pleadings — Requirement to Plead Material Facts — Order 6 Rule 1
Under Order 6 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, every pleading must contain only a statement in concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies. Where a party has not pleaded certain facts, that party will not be allowed to lead evidence to prove those facts unless the pleadings are amended accordingly.
Costs — Entitlement to Costs — Necessity of Action
Where a plaintiff is justified in bringing an action because the defendant initially denied liability in pleadings and delayed payment, no sufficient cause exists to deny the successful party costs of the action. Costs ordinarily follow the event.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (5)

  • National Pharmacy V. Kampala City Council H.C.B. 256
  • Wambugu v Public Service Commission [1972] EA 296
  • Sabiiti Sebunya v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 761 of 1988)
  • G.B. Tunyamweeba v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 436 of 1989)
  • Mbowa and Others v Lint Marketing Board (High Court Civil Suit No. 496 of 1990)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dr. E. Kigonya v Margaret Naiga (Civil Suit No. 456 of 1991) [1992] UGHC 133 (1 June 1992)
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.