Wakilii

Garden Courts Hotel Ltd v Newplan Limited (Civil Suit No. 245 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 537 · 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 and recovery of debt for hotel services rendered
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with recovery of UGX 207,054,371 plus general damages of UGX 25,000,000, interest, and costs

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

The court held that the defendant breached a service agreement by failing to pay invoices for hotel services within the contractually stipulated 20 working days. The plaintiff was entitled to recover UGX 207,054,371 (after deducting an erroneously included invoice) plus general damages of UGX 25,000,000. Interest was awarded at 24% per annum on the principal sum from the date of filing and 6% per annum on general damages from judgment. Claims for aggravated and punitive damages were denied.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with recovery of UGX 207,054,371 plus general damages of UGX 25,000,000, interest, and costs

Facts

On 4 November 2020, the plaintiff hotel executed a service agreement with the defendant to provide catering and accommodation services during the defendant's field projects in the Masaka region. The agreement stipulated payment within 20 working days of receipt of approved invoices. The defendant initially paid invoices but later defaulted. On 14 November 2022, the defendant's Managing Director acknowledged indebtedness of UGX 217,251,941 and committed to payment by 30 November 2022. The defendant failed to pay. The plaintiff sued for UGX 216,924,271 representing unpaid invoices issued between June 2021 and September 2022. The defendant disputed the amount, claiming lack of supporting documentation and absence of URA receipts, and argued that a payment of UGX 180,000,000 had not been properly accounted for.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant breached the service agreement/contract?
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of UGX 216,924,271/=?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • It is declared that the Defendant breached the service agreement/contract between the parties.
  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff UGX 207,054,371/= being the outstanding sum for the unpaid invoices issued by the Plaintiff.
  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff general damages of UGX 25,000,000/=.
  • Interest is awarded on the sum in (2) above at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • Interest is awarded on the sum in (3) above at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of Judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Breach of Contract — Failure to Pay Within Contractual Time Limit
A party breaches a service agreement when it fails to pay approved invoices within the contractually stipulated time period, regardless of subsequent acknowledgment of the debt.
Documentary Evidence — Acknowledgment of Debt
A written acknowledgment of indebtedness by a party's Managing Director constitutes strong evidence of the debt and precludes the party from raising defences not mentioned in the acknowledgment letter, such as absence of URA receipts.
Service Contracts — Supporting Documentation
Where a service agreement does not require the service provider to maintain detailed records of individual beneficiaries, and the client maintains its own internal manifests for approval purposes, the client cannot refuse payment on grounds that supporting documentation identifying beneficiaries was not provided.
General Damages — Breach of Commercial Contract
General damages for breach of a commercial service contract are awarded to compensate the plaintiff for financial inconvenience, including pressure from suppliers and service providers who were direct beneficiaries of the contract, and must reflect the economic impact on the plaintiff's business operations.
Interest — Commercial Debt
Interest on commercial debt should be awarded at a rate that compensates for inflation and currency depreciation while remaining reasonable; a rate of 24% per annum on the principal sum from filing and 6% per annum on general damages from judgment is appropriate in the prevailing economic circumstances.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (21)

  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006)
  • John Bwiza v Patrick Yowasi Kadama (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2011)
  • William Kasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 1326 of 2000)
  • Meridiana Africa Airlines (U) Ltd v Avmax Spares (EA) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 111 of 2017)
  • Omega Bank Plc Vs O.B.C. Limited (2005) 8 NWLR (pt.928)
  • Fina Bank Ltd v Spares and Industries Ltd [2000] 1 EA 52
  • Storms Bruks Aktie Bolag & Others v J & P Hutchinson [1905] UKHL 844
  • Kayonza Distributors v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 211 of 2008)
  • 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
  • Fredrick J.K. Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd & Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2006)
  • Obongo & Another v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] EA 91
  • Luzinda Marion Babirye v Ssekamatte (Alias Mulwana Samuel) & Others (Civil Suit No. 366 of 2017)
  • O'Connor v Hewitson [1979] Crim. LR 46
  • Archer v Brown [1985] QB 401
  • 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
  • Waiglobe (U) Ltd v Sai Beverages Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 16 of 2017)
  • 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] HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Garden Courts Hotel Ltd v Newplan Limited (Civil Suit No. 245 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 537 (31 October 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.