Dr. Nalubega Maimuna v Semakula Ismael and Millennium Estates Developers (Civil Suit No. 127 of 2017)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The High Court held that the 2nd defendant became party to the land sale contracts through novation when its director endorsed the agreements with the company seal. The defendants breached the contracts by failing to deliver vacant possession and selling encumbered land. The court ordered refund of the purchase price (UGX 55,100,000), compensation (UGX 60,000,000), general damages (UGX 60,000,000), and interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing suit.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with orders for refund, compensation, general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

The plaintiff purchased five acres of land from the 1st defendant in two transactions (31 December 2012 and 13 January 2014) for a total of UGX 48,000,000, paying an additional UGX 4,700,000 for transfer fees. The 1st defendant initially worked with Sema Properties and later informed the plaintiff he was now a director of the 2nd defendant, which endorsed the sale agreements with its company seal on 19 January 2016. The defendants failed to deliver vacant possession, claiming the land was encumbered by squatters who were resistant to removal. The plaintiff was never granted possession despite full payment. The defendants did not file trial bundles or witness statements and did not appear in court despite effective service. The court proceeded under Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

1. Whether there was a contract of sale of land between the plaintiff and 2nd defendant?
2. Whether there was breach of contract by the defendants?
3. What remedies are available to parties?

Orders

• Declaration that the defendants are in breach of the contracts entered into with the plaintiff dated 31st December 2012 and 13th January 2014.
• The defendants shall refund the plaintiff UGX 55,100,000 being the purchase price of the two portions of land and the transfer fees paid.
• The defendants shall compensate the plaintiff UGX 60,000,000.
• The defendants shall pay the plaintiff general damages of UGX 60,000,000.
• The defendants shall pay the plaintiff interest at the rate of 8% per annum on items 3 and 4 from the date of filing the suit until full payment.
• The defendants shall pay costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Contracts Act 2010 s.10(1)
• Evidence Act s.101
• Evidence Act s.102
• Evidence Act s.103
• Companies Act s.55
• Civil Procedure Act s.26(2)
• Civil Procedure Act s.27
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 17 Rule 4

Cases cited (11)

• Waga v Chief Administrative Officer Maracha and Another (Civil Suit No. 0005 of 2016)
• HL Bolton (Engineering) Co Ltd v TJ Graham & Sons Ltd [1956] 3 All ER 624
• Kimanywenda v Brukam Limited (HCCS No. 0021 of 2015)
• Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 542 of 2006)
• William Kasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd (HCCS No. 1326 of 2000)
• Kampala District Land Board and George Mitala v Venansio Babweyana (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
• Goodman International Ltd v Attorney General and Another (HCCS No. 73 of 2014)
• Campuline Mukisa and Another v Lutwama Henry Ssalongo (HCCS No. 682 of 2018)
• Storms v Hutchison (1905) AC 515
• Assist (U) Ltd v Italian Asphalt and Haulage and Another (HCCS No. 1291 of 1999)
• Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 7 of 1995)

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.

• Ndiburungi v Crane Bank (In Liquidation) & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 124 of 2017)

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