Ebbzworld Ltd & Anor v Rutakirwa (Civil Suit No. 398 of 2013)
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.
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 found a valid contract existed between the parties for website development services. The defendant breached the contract by issuing cheques for the agreed contract sum of USD 20,500 and subsequently stopping payment. The court rejected the defendant's challenge to the contract's validity and his counterclaim regarding book sales. Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs for the contract sum plus general damages.
Outcome
Judgment entered for the plaintiffs for contract sum, general damages, interest, and costs. Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
Facts
On 18 September 2012, the defendant contacted the second plaintiff to develop and host 14 websites. The parties formalised their engagement on 17 January 2013 by signing a Website Development and Hosting Agreement for USD 20,500 (equivalent to UGX 55 million). By 18 May 2013, the plaintiffs had completed the work to the defendant's satisfaction. The defendant issued three Equity Bank cheques totalling USD 20,500 as payment. When the plaintiffs banked the cheques, all were returned unpaid. The defendant had instructed the bank to stop payment. Despite several reminders and a subsequent offer by the defendant to settle for UGX 11,000,000, the debt remained unpaid. The defendant challenged the validity of the contract, claiming the signed document differed from what was agreed and that the second plaintiff lacked capacity to sign. The defendant also counterclaimed for alleged proceeds from book sales under an oral agreement.
Issues
- Whether there was a contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant to design websites and if so, what was the number of the websites to be designed.
- Whether the defendant is liable for breach of contract when he issued false cheques to the plaintiffs.
- Whether the defendant is entitled to the counter claim.
- What remedies are available to the plaintiffs.
Orders
- Judgment entered for the plaintiffs.
- Defendant to pay USD 20,500 being sums due on contract sum.
- Defendant to pay UGX 15,000,000 being general damages.
- Interest at 4% per annum on the contract sum from date of filing suit till payment in full.
- Interest at 10% per annum on general damages from date of judgment till payment in full.
- Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.
- Counterclaim dismissed with no order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Contract Act s.2
- Contract Act s.10
- Evidence Act s.101(1)
Cases cited (4)
- Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (Civil Suit No. 0580 of 2003)
- Nakana Trading Co. Ltd v Coffee Marketing Board (Civil Suit No. 137 of 1991)
- Nsubuga v Kavuma [1978] HCB 307
- Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006)
Cases citing this judgment (6)
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.
- Nakibuuka Sebalu v Semujju (Civil Suit 342 of 2021)
- Muwonge and Another v Kabugo (Civil Suit 454 of 2014)
- Kyakuwa v BagaveAgency Limited and 2 Others (Civil Suit 878 of 2018)
- Matovu v Mayanja & Another (Civil Appeal 47 of 2021)
- Ayub Talutambudde v Lubega Sulaiman (Civil Suit No. 299 of 2020)
- Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Cyan Uganda Ltd and Others (Civil Suit No. 622 of 2018)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.