Wakilii

Fast Forwarding & Shipping Co. Limited v China Wu Yi Co. Limited (Civil Suit 415 of 2021)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 27 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract, proceeded ex parte after defendant failed to file defence
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of Plaintiff with monetary awards and costs after ex parte hearing

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

Court held that a valid contract existed between plaintiff clearing agent and defendant client based on email correspondences appointing plaintiff to clear consignments from Mombasa to Uganda. Defendant breached the contract by failing to pay for services rendered. Email correspondences satisfy the writing requirement under Contracts Act s.10(5) for contracts exceeding twenty-five cents. Plaintiff awarded unpaid invoices of USD 183,150 plus general damages of UGX 50,000,000 for economic inconvenience, with interest at 9% per annum on invoices from suit date and 18% per annum on general damages from judgment date.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of Plaintiff with monetary awards and costs after ex parte hearing

Facts

Defendant China Wu Yi Co. Ltd appointed Plaintiff Fast Forwarding & Shipping Co. Ltd as clearing and forwarding agent via email to clear two consignments from Mombasa to Kakumiro, Uganda. Plaintiff subcontracted Multiple Solutions Ltd to transport the consignments. Services were rendered between 9 May 2019 and 15 May 2019. Defendant failed to pay the invoiced amount of USD 185,000. Plaintiff issued demand notices in December 2020 and February 2021. Defendant was served with summons but failed to file written statement of defence. Court initially entered default judgment under wrong rule (Order 9 Rule 5 and 6 CPR for liquidated demand instead of Order 9 Rule 10 or 11(2) CPR for damages claim), set it aside suo motu, ordered fresh service which was effected on 7 July 2023, and matter proceeded ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether there was breach of contract by the Defendant?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Defendant pays the Plaintiff's unpaid invoices amounting to USD $183,150.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded general damages to the tune of UGX 50,000,000.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded interest at a rate of 9% per annum on the USD $183,150 from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded interest on the general damages at a rate of 18% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded the costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation — Writing Requirement — Email Correspondences
Email correspondences between parties appointing one party to provide clearing and forwarding services constitute a valid written contract satisfying the writing requirement under Section 10(5) of the Contracts Act Cap 284 for contracts exceeding twenty-five cents, as the writing requirement does not demand a formal written contract but any writing that reasonably identifies the subject matter, indicates contract existence, and states material terms with reasonable certainty.
Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Applicable Rule — Liquidated vs Unliquidated Claims
Where a plaintiff's claim includes special damages, general damages and other unliquidated sums, default judgment cannot be entered under Order 9 Rule 5 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules which applies only to liquidated demands; the court must instead proceed under Order 9 Rule 10 (suit proceeds as if defence filed) or Order 9 Rule 11(2) (ex parte proceedings), and a default judgment entered under the wrong rule may be set aside suo motu.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Breach of Contract — Assessment Principles
In assessing general damages for breach of contract, courts consider the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience suffered, and the nature and extent of the breach; a party denied use of funds owed since 2019 in a sum converting to approximately UGX 672,000,000 may be awarded general damages of UGX 50,000,000 as adequate compensation for inconvenience, suffering and pain caused by the breach.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Rates — Restitutio in Integrum
The purpose of an award of interest is restitutio in integrum to restore the plaintiff as nearly as possible to the position they would have been in had the injury not occurred; in commercial cases interest is intended to reflect the rate at which the plaintiff would have had to borrow money to replace that which was withheld; courts should take into account rising inflation and currency depreciation and award such rate as would insulate the plaintiff against economic vagaries while not neglecting the prevailing economic value of money.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (12)

  • Dembe Trading Enterprises Ltd v Uganda Confidential Ltd (HCCS No. 612 of 2006)
  • Premier Commodities (U) Ltd v Kiir Services & Construction Co. Limited (HCCS No. 0126 of 2019)
  • Takiya Kashwahiri & Anor v Kajungu Dennis (CACA No. 85 of 2011)
  • Bank of Africa Limited v Ssuuna Fred (HCCS No. 1036 of 2023)
  • Semakula Kayinda Solomon v Auger Revival Ministries Ltd (HCCS No. 0880 of 2020)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (SCCA No. 17 of 1992)
  • Lwanga v Centenary Bank [1999] EA 175
  • Riches v Westminster Bank Ltd [1947] 1 All ER 469
  • Tate & Lyle Food and Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council [1981] 3 All ER 716
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Ltd (HCCS No. 234 of 2011)
  • Uganda Development v Muganga Constructions [1981] HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Fast Forwarding & Shipping Co. Limited v China Wu Yi Co. Limited (Civil Suit 415 of 2021) [2025] UGCommC 27 (12 March 2025)
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.