Wakilii

Galiwango t a Habriz Auto Supplies v Royal Transit Ltd and Anor (Civil Suit No. 511 of 2018)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 11 · 2022 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 on credit
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff for full amount claimed with costs

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 a valid contract existed between the parties for supply of spare parts on credit, evidenced by a written agreement acknowledging prior debt and committing to further supplies. The 1st defendant's acknowledgment of indebtedness in the written agreement constituted an admission under Evidence Act s.57 that did not require further proof. Unchallenged expert accounting evidence established the outstanding debt at UGX 200,031,000. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff with costs following the event under Civil Procedure Act s.27.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff for full amount claimed with costs

Facts

The plaintiff, a spare parts dealer trading as Habriz Auto Supplies, supplied spare parts for heavy trucks to the 1st defendant company on credit between 2016 and 2017. By September 2016, the outstanding balance reached UGX 110,052,000. On 19 September 2016, the parties executed a written agreement in which the 2nd defendant, as director of the 1st defendant company, acknowledged the outstanding debt and committed to periodic payments. The agreement also provided for continued supply on credit up to UGX 200,000,000 as consolidated revolving material credit support. The plaintiff resumed supplies from January 2017 to July 2017. The 1st defendant defaulted on payments and by 13 July 2017 the unpaid amount reached UGX 200,031,000. The suit was initially filed under specially endorsed plaint but became a normal suit after the defendant was given leave to defend. At the hearing on 20 January 2021, the defendants failed to appear and the plaintiff proceeded exparte with three witnesses.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a valid contract between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant
  2. Whether the 1st defendant is indebted to the plaintiff and to what tune
  3. What are the remedies available to the plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment entered against the defendant.
  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff UGX 200,031,000 being special damages immediately, in any case not later than 30 days from the date of judgment.
  • Defendant to pay costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation of Contract — Essential Elements — Capacity, Intention, Consensus, Consideration, Legality, Certainty
For a contract to be valid and legally enforceable, there must be capacity to contract, intention to contract, consensus ad idem, valuable consideration, legality of purpose, and sufficient certainty of terms.
Commercial Law — Company Contracts — Director's Authority — Binding Effect on Company
Where a company's director signs a contract on behalf of the company in his capacity as director, the company is bound by that contract.
Evidence — Admissions — Written Admissions Before Proceedings — Effect Under Evidence Act s.57
Under Evidence Act s.57, no fact need be proved in any proceedings which the parties or their agents admit in writing under their hands before the commencement of the proceedings. A party is not obliged to prove a debt which the other party has admitted in writing.
Evidence — Unchallenged Evidence — Weight to be Attached
Unchallenged evidence should be regarded as truthful unless the court is convinced that it was inherently untruthful.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of Court — Costs Follow the Event
Under Civil Procedure Act s.27(1), costs are in the discretion of the court, and where a party succeeds on all issues, costs should ordinarily be awarded to that party following the principle that costs follow the event.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (6)

  • Green boat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (Civil Suit No. 580 of 2003)
  • Jamal Kendo v Umar Rizwan and Anor (Civil Suit No. 590 of 2014)
  • URA v Steven Mabosi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1995)
  • Samwiri Massa vs. Rose Achen 1987 HCB 297
  • Harry Ssempa v Kabagambire David (Civil Suit No. 408 of 2014)
  • Jenniffer Rwanyindo Aurelia and Anor v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1999)

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.

  • [2026] UGCOMMC 273

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Galiwango t a Habriz Auto Supplies v Royal Transit Ltd and Anor (Civil Suit No. 511 of 2018) [2022] UGCommC 11 (24 January 2022)
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.