Wakilii

Fuston Oils (U) SMC Limited v Ayemu Holdings Limited (Civil Suit No. 152 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 160 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money arising from breach of contract, heard ex parte after defendant failed to appear
Decision
Judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff with recovery of principal sum, general damages, interest, and costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (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 4 times 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

Held that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of UGX 66,500,000 arising from breach of a fuel supply contract. The defendant's written statement of defence was deemed invalid due to failure to appear despite service. The plaintiff proved its case on a balance of probabilities through documentary evidence including bank statements and invoices. The court awarded the principal sum, general damages of UGX 60,000,000, interest at 5% per annum, and costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff with recovery of principal sum, general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

On 24 November 2021, the plaintiff paid the defendant UGX 96,500,000 to supply petrol worth UGX 41,000,000 and diesel worth UGX 55,500,000 to BOK Petroleum Limited. An invoice was issued confirming receipt. The defendant failed to deliver the fuel as agreed. On 4 December 2021, the plaintiff demanded a refund. The defendant remitted only UGX 30,000,000 and offered a land sale agreement in Kajjansi valued at UGX 60,000,000 to settle the debt. A valuation on 29 March 2022 assessed the land's market value at only UGX 23,000,000. The plaintiff discovered the defendant had already transferred the same land to third parties on 16 February 2022 for UGX 32,000,000. Despite repeated demands, the defendant failed to repay the outstanding balance of UGX 66,500,000. The plaintiff claimed business losses including termination of its contract with BOK Petroleum Limited and operational disruptions. The defendant filed a defence denying the allegations but failed to appear at trial despite service.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff.
  2. Whether the Defendant's written statement of defence constitutes a valid defence.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff is entitled to the principal sum of UGX 66,500,000.
  • General damages of UGX 60,000,000 awarded.
  • Interest at 5% per annum on the principal sum and general damages from the date of filing until payment in full.
  • The defendant shall pay the costs of this suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation of Contract — Essential Elements
A valid contract requires an agreement made with the free consent of parties with capacity to contract for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object with the intention to be legally bound. Where parties negotiate terms, agree on price, and one party makes full payment evidenced by bank statements and invoices, a valid contract is established through lawful consideration and clear offer and acceptance.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Shifting of Burden
Under section 101(1) of the Evidence Act, a party asserting a claim bears the initial burden of proof. Once documents and part performance are shown, the burden shifts to the opposing party. Mere denials cannot amount to a defence in the face of documentary evidence such as bank statements and invoices.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Plaintiff's Burden of Proof
Failure by a defendant to file a defence or prosecute a matter does not mean automatic judgment for the plaintiff. The plaintiff must prove his case on the standard required by law even in ex parte proceedings. However, where a defence is filed but not pursued through attendance or further evidence, it loses its efficacy and may be deemed withdrawn.
Civil Procedure — Written Statement of Defence — Effect of Non-Appearance
Under Order 9 Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where a defendant fails to appear after filing a defence, the court may proceed ex parte and the defence may be deemed withdrawn unless revived by appearance. A defence not pursued through attendance or further evidence loses its efficacy, particularly where the plaintiff's case remains unchallenged.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Entitlement to Compensation
Under section 67(1) of the Contracts Act, where there is a breach of a contract, the party who suffers the breach is entitled to receive from the party who breaches the contract compensation for any loss or damage caused. This establishes the general rule of liability for breach of contract in Uganda.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment and Proof
General damages are such as the law will presume to be the natural or probable consequence of the wrong complained of. They are meant to compensate and not enrich. Unlike special damages, they do not require strict proof of the exact figure but the claimant must show the extent of loss, inconvenience or suffering. The amount is at the court's discretion.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (6)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (1999) 2 EA
  • Okello v UNEB (1982) HCB 54
  • Sebuliba v Cooperative Bank Ltd (1982) HCB 129
  • Sebuliba v Cooperative Bank Ltd (1982) HCB 131
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v. Cooper Motor Corporation (U) Ltd (supra)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1992)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

Fuston Oils (U) SMC Limited v Ayemu Holdings Limited (Civil Suit No. 152 of 2022) [2025] UGHCCD 160 (26 September 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.