Wakilii

Ewadra v Spencon Services Limited (CIVIL SUIT No. 0022 OF 2015)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 136 · 2017 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for specific performance and damages following defendant's default in filing defence; interlocutory judgment entered and matter heard on formal proof of damages
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with conditional order of specific performance and alternative damages award

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 2 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 2 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations steady — 6 citing cases on record, 6 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 defendant breached six contracts by failing to level and backfill land after excavating murram as required by clause one of each contract. The court ordered specific performance requiring the defendant to restore the land within thirty days. Failing compliance, the plaintiff may recover UGX 12,000,000 as general damages representing the reasonable cost of restoration, calculated by reference to the acreage, depth of excavation, and estimated duration of restoration works.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with conditional order of specific performance and alternative damages award

Facts

Between March 2013 and September 2014, the plaintiff and defendant entered into six successive contracts permitting the defendant to excavate murram from approximately 3.5 acres of the plaintiff's land in Adjumani District. Each contract contained a clause one requiring the defendant to level the excavated area and backfill it with top soil and overburden removed before extraction. The defendant excavated murram valued at UGX 29,000,000 but failed to perform the restoration obligation, leaving large open pits on the land. The defendant was served with summons but filed no defence. Interlocutory judgment was entered and the matter proceeded on formal proof of damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant breached any of the contracts for excavation of murram.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the restoration obligation under the contracts.
  3. Whether general damages or specific performance is the appropriate remedy for breach of a land restoration clause in murram excavation contracts.

Orders

  • An order of specific performance of clause one common to the six contracts requiring the defendant within one month from the date of judgment to level the area from which it excavated murram with top soil and overburden which it removed before extraction.
  • In the event of the defendant's failure to comply with the order of specific performance, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff UGX 12,000,000 as general damages.
  • Upon the award in (b) becoming operative, interest at 15% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Specific Performance vs Damages — Test of Reasonableness
Specific performance will not be decreed where a common law remedy such as damages would be adequate to put the plaintiff in the position he would have been but for the breach; however, where it is reasonable for the innocent party to insist upon reinstatement, the courts will treat the cost of reinstatement as the measure of damage.
Contract Law — Damages for Breach — Cost of Reinstatement — Reasonableness Test
In deciding between diminution in value and cost of reinstatement as the measure of damages, the appropriate test is the reasonableness of the plaintiff's desire to reinstate the property; if to award the notional cost of reinstatement would be unreasonable in that it would put the plaintiff in a far better financial position than before the breach, the cost of reinstatement will not be recoverable as damages.
Contract Law — Remedies for Breach — Specific Performance — Conditions under Section 64 Contracts Act 2010
Under section 64 of the Contracts Act 2010, a party may obtain an order of specific performance where the party in breach is able to perform, where specific performance will not produce hardship or infringe third party rights, and where the breach is fundamental or specific performance is available subject to compensation; specific performance is an available remedy alongside damages where the breach involves a contractual obligation to restore land.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment — Land Restoration Following Excavation
In assessing general damages for failure to restore land after murram excavation, the court should be guided by the acreage affected, the depth and span of excavated areas, the estimated duration and cost of restoration works using appropriate equipment, and the principle that damages are to compensate for actual loss and not provide a gratuitous benefit to the plaintiff.
Contract Law — Damages — Proof of Loss — Burden on Plaintiff
A plaintiff claiming the cost of land restoration as damages must adduce evidence to prove how much it would cost to restore the land to its pre-breach condition; where such evidence is not provided, the court may award general damages based on its assessment of reasonable restoration costs using available evidence including photographs, acreage, and the court's own commonsense.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (18)

  • Kirugi and Another v Kabiya and Three Others [1987] KLR 347
  • Manzoor v Baram [2003] 2 EA 580
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 13 of 1993)
  • Erukana Kuwe v Isaac Patrick Matovu and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 177 of 2003)
  • The Rio Claro [1987] 2 Lloyd's Rep 173
  • Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • East Ham BC v Bernard Sunley & Sons Ltd [1965] 3 All ER 619
  • Minscombe Properties Ltd v Sir Alfred McAlpine and Sons Ltd (1986) 2 Const LJ 303
  • Wodero v Lunco Contractors Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 82 of 2001)
  • Dr Henry Kamanyiro Kakembo v Roko Construction Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2005)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
  • Charles Acire v M Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Storms v Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • Kabona Brothers Agencies v Uganda Metal Products & Enamelling Co Ltd [1981-1982] HCB 74
  • Kiwanuka Godfrey T/a Tasumi Auto Spares and Class Mart v Arua District Local Government (High Court Civil Suit No. 186 of 2006)
  • African Highland Produce Ltd v Kisorio [2001] 1 EA 1

Cases citing this judgment (5)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ewadra v Spencon Services Limited (CIVIL SUIT No. 0022 OF 2015) [2017] UGHCCD 136 (12 October 2017)
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.