Wakilii

Fuel Stick Uganda Limited v Nile Breweries Limited and Others (Civil Suit No. 766 of 2022)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 33 · 2026 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of debt arising from supply of goods, with counterclaim alleging fraud and breach of contract
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff for UGX 322,848,000 plus general damages of UGX 45,000,000 with interest and costs. Counterclaim dismissed with costs to the 1st and 2nd counter defendants.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) 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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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 court held that the plaintiff proved delivery of Biofuel Conditioner S19 worth UGX 322,848,000 through signed delivery notes and Goods Received Notes, and that the defendant accepted the goods without timely rejection. The defendant's allegations of fraud and counterfeit goods were not strictly proved. The counterclaim against all counter defendants failed for lack of evidence of fraud, collusion, or negligence. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff with interest and costs; the counterclaim was dismissed.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff for UGX 322,848,000 plus general damages of UGX 45,000,000 with interest and costs. Counterclaim dismissed with costs to the 1st and 2nd counter defendants.

Facts

The plaintiff supplied Biofuel Conditioner S19 to the defendant pursuant to three purchase orders dated 4th March, 12th March (actually 21st March per evidence), and 12th April 2022, with deliveries made on 22nd March, 23rd March, and 28th April 2022, totaling UGX 322,848,000. The defendant issued Goods Received Notes acknowledging receipt. The defendant failed to pay within the contractual 120-day payment term. The defendant counterclaimed alleging the plaintiff never supplied the goods, that delivery notes were forged, and that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th counter defendants conspired in a fraudulent scheme to obtain payment for ghost supplies. The defendant alleged the plaintiff delivered counterfeit products not meeting UNBS standards. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th counter defendants did not file defences and the counterclaim proceeded ex parte against them.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant/Counterclaimant is indebted to the Plaintiff?
  2. Whether the Counter Defendants are indebted to the Counterclaimant?
  3. Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought?

Orders

  • It is hereby declared that the Defendant breached the contract of supply of Biofuel Conditioner S19 with the Plaintiff.
  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff UGX 322,848,000/= being the outstanding amount for the Biofuel Conditioner S19 delivered on 22nd March, 2022, 23rd March, 2022 and 28th April, 2022.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 45,000,000/=.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the sum in (2) above, from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the sum in (3) above, from the date of Judgment until payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded the costs of the suit.
  • The counterclaim against the Counter Defendants fails and is hereby dismissed.
  • Costs of the counterclaim are awarded to the 1st and the 2nd Counter Defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Sale of Goods — Proof of Delivery — Delivery Notes and Goods Received Notes
Proof of delivery of goods is established when a customer signs a delivery note or similar document acknowledging receipt of the goods, and where the recipient issues a Goods Received Note, such evidence confirms delivery in accordance with the contract.
Contract Law — Sale of Goods — Acceptance of Goods — Failure to Reject Within Reasonable Time
Under Section 43(1) of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, a buyer is taken to have accepted goods when, after the lapse of a reasonable time, the buyer retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he or she has rejected them, and allegations of counterfeit or substandard goods raised only after institution of suit constitute an afterthought where no timely rejection occurred.
Evidence — Fraud — Burden and Standard of Proof — Strict Proof Required
Particulars of fraud must be specifically pleaded and fraud must be proved strictly, the burden being heavier than that on a balance of probabilities as applied in ordinary civil matters, and a party alleging fraud must adduce cogent evidence to discharge this burden.
Commercial Law — Corporate Veil — Lifting the Veil — Grounds for Piercing
Under Section 18 of the Companies Act, the High Court may lift the corporate veil where a company or its directors are involved in acts including tax evasion or fraud, but the party seeking to pierce the veil must prove that the company was a façade or sham, or was involved in impropriety associated with use of the corporate structure to avoid or conceal liability.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — General Damages — Measure of Compensation
The general rule regarding the measure of general damages for breach of contract is that the award should be such a sum of money as will put the injured party in the same position as he or she would have been had he or she not sustained the wrong, and damages should be compensatory in nature restoring satisfaction as far as money can do.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (15)

  • E.P. Communications Ltd v East Africa Courier Services Ltd [2019] eKLR
  • Kyadok Hardware Limited v Kwik Build Contractors Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 40 of 2014)
  • Galbraith & Grant Ltd v Block [1924] 2 KB 155
  • John Bwiza v Patrick Yowasi Kadama (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2011)
  • Frederick J.K. Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd & 5 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2006)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
  • Absa Bank of Uganda Ltd v Enjoy Uganda Ltd & 2 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1243 of 2023)
  • Kabandize John Baptist and 21 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2016)
  • Takiya Kashwahiri and Another v Kajungu Denis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Deo Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation (U) Ltd and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
  • Wallersteiner v Moir [1975] 1 All ER 849
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 224 of 2011)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] H.C.B 35

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Fuel Stick Uganda Limited v Nile Breweries Limited and Others (Civil Suit No. 766 of 2022) [2026] UGCommC 33 (9 February 2026)
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.