Wakilii

Drata Alio v Hydra Homes Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 564 of 2014)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 26 · 2022 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of purchase price and breach of contract
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with refund of deposit, interest, and general damages. Defendant's counterclaim partly allowed for unpaid rental arrears only.

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

The court held that the defendant breached the contract by failing to import and deliver the Hydrautec Block Making Machine despite receiving USD 26,000 as initial deposit. The plaintiff was entitled to a refund of the deposit with interest at 5% per annum from the date of filing suit, plus general damages of UGX 20,000,000. The defendant was entitled to USD 4,200 as unpaid rental arrears for the hired machine, which could be offset against the plaintiff's award.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with refund of deposit, interest, and general damages. Defendant's counterclaim partly allowed for unpaid rental arrears only.

Facts

On 13 June 2012, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract for the purchase of a Hydrautec Block Making Machine worth USD 52,000. The plaintiff paid USD 26,000 as initial deposit and hired an M7 Twin Block Making Machine from the defendant at USD 100 per day for temporary use in DRC pending delivery of the new machine. The contract provided that upon payment of the balance of USD 26,000, the defendant would deliver the new machine and the plaintiff would return the hired machine and pay rental arrears. The defendant failed to import and deliver the new machine despite the plaintiff's reminders. The plaintiff returned the hired machine and paid USD 7,500 in rental fees but disputed owing the full amount claimed by the defendant. The defendant counterclaimed for the balance of the purchase price and rental arrears of USD 75,400.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant breached the agreement of sale?
  2. Whether the plaintiff breached the agreement of sale?
  3. Whether the M7 Twin Block Machine was returned to the defendant?
  4. Whether the plaintiff paid the daily hire fees for the M7 Twin Block Making Machine from the defendant?
  5. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The defendant refunds USD 26,000 to the plaintiff.
  • Interest is awarded on the sum at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • The plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 20,000,000.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the plaintiff.
  • In relation to the counterclaim, the defendant is entitled to USD 4,200 payable by the plaintiff, with parties at liberty to offset the same.
  • No costs awarded to the counterclaimant.

Rules and key headnotes

Agreement to Sell — Distinction from Sale — Property Passing
Under the Sale of Goods Act s.2(4), where under a contract the property in goods is to pass at a future time or subject to conditions to be fulfilled later, the contract is an agreement to sell, not a sale. Property passes only when the time elapses or conditions are fulfilled.
Implied Terms — Obvious Terms Not Requiring Express Statement
An implied term is one which in the eyes of either party would obviously not need inclusion in the written terms because it is something taken as obvious. Where parties agree that a seller will import goods before the buyer pays the balance, it is an implied term that the seller must first import and have the goods available for inspection before the buyer's obligation to pay the balance arises.
Breach of Contract — Failure to Perform Obligation
Breach of contract is the violation of a contractual obligation, either by failing to perform one's own promise or by interfering with another party's obligation. A seller who fails to import and deliver goods as agreed commits a breach of contract.
Recovery of Part Payment — Seller's Breach
Where there is a sale of goods and part payment is made but no goods are delivered by reason of the seller's default, the buyer is entitled to recover the purchase price paid, subject to the seller's right to set off damages. Once the seller treats the contract as at an end owing to breach, the buyer may recover his money by action at law.
General Damages — Assessment for Breach of Contract
Under the Contracts Act 2010 s.61(1), a party who suffers breach of contract is entitled to compensation for any loss or damage caused. In assessing quantum, courts consider the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience suffered, and the nature and extent of the breach. The aim is to put the plaintiff in the position he would have been in had the breach not occurred.
Interest — Just and Reasonable Rate Where Not Agreed
Under the Civil Procedure Act s.26(1), where interest was not agreed upon by the parties, court should award interest that is just and reasonable. In determining a just rate, courts take into account the ever-rising inflation and drastic depreciation of currency, awarding a rate that insulates the plaintiff against economic vagaries while not being punitive.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (10)

  • William Kasozi v DFCU Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 1326 of 2000)
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006)
  • Cargo World Logistics Ltd v Royale Group Africa (High Court Commercial Division Civil Suit No. 157 of 2013)
  • Pan Afric Impex (U) Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 804 of 2007)
  • Shirlaw v Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd [1939] 2 All ER 113
  • Dies v British & International Mining (1939) 1 KB 724
  • Stockloser v Johnson [1954] 1 All ER 630
  • Ewadra Emmanuel v Spencon Services Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 22 of 2015)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 234 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Drata Alio v Hydra Homes Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 564 of 2014) [2022] UGCommC 26 (22 April 2022)
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.