Edmund Akatukwasa v Gershom Kanyaruju and Anor - (HCT-00-CC-CS 1017 of 2004)
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 parties orally varied a written contract following the seller's breach and agreed on a reduced refund amount, the agreement is enforceable where the variation is consistent with the original contract's penalty clause and supported by evidence. Held further that a third party who voluntarily guarantees payment of another's debt in writing and makes part payment is bound by the doctrine of novation to pay the balance, and cannot unilaterally withdraw from the commitment without consent of all parties. Dishonoured cheques create an immediate right of recourse against the drawer for the debt they were intended to settle.
Outcome
Judgment entered for the plaintiff against both defendants for the sums claimed with interest and costs
Facts
The plaintiff and 1st defendant entered a written contract for the sale of a vehicle for Shs.30,000,000, with Shs.10,000,000 paid upfront. The contract provided that if the seller failed to deliver, he would refund all deposits plus 30% interest per month. The seller defaulted after receiving Shs.15,000,000. The parties orally agreed the seller would refund Shs.28,000,000 (a reduction from the contractual entitlement of Shs.37,500,000). The seller arranged for the 2nd defendant, to whom he had leased the vehicle, to pay Shs.22,000,000 to the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant confirmed this commitment in writing and paid Shs.15,000,000 but refused to pay the balance of Shs.7,000,000. The 1st defendant issued two post-dated cheques totalling US $4,000 to cover the remaining Shs.6,000,000, but both cheques bounced. The plaintiff sued both defendants for the outstanding amounts.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to payment of US $4,000
- Whether the 2nd defendant is liable to pay Shs.7,000,000 to the plaintiff
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to other reliefs sought
Orders
- Judgment for the plaintiff against the 1st defendant in the sum of Shs.6,000,000 (equivalent of US $4,000 at the exchange rate of Shs.1,500 per dollar).
- Judgment for the plaintiff against the 2nd defendant in the sum of Shs.7,000,000.
- Interest at 25% per annum on the sum of Shs.6,000,000 from 28 September 2004 (date of dishonour of the last cheque) until payment in full.
- Interest at 25% per annum on the sum of Shs.7,000,000 from 6 July 2004 (date of default by 2nd defendant) until payment in full.
- Taxed costs of the suit to be paid by the defendants, one half by the 1st defendant and the other half by the 2nd defendant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Contract Act Cap. 73 s.3(1)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.