Wakilii

Gentex Enterprise Ltd v M & B Engineers Ltd (Civil Suit No. 74 of 2013)

High Court · [2016] UGCOMMC 17 · 2016 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 for goods supplied on credit, originally filed as summary suit; defendant granted unconditional leave to defend; matter proceeded ex parte following defendant's failure to participate after substituted service
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff for the sum claimed with interest and 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 where a buyer issues cheques as payment for goods supplied and the cheques are dishonoured, the seller is entitled to judgment for the face value of the cheques, treating them as cash. The plaintiff proved supply of water pipes worth UGX 109,758,000 of which UGX 59,000,000 was paid, leaving UGX 50,758,000 unpaid. Judgment entered for the plaintiff for UGX 50,758,000 plus interest at rates reflective of commercial lending practices. No general damages awarded where no evidence of specific loss beyond deprivation of money was adduced.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff for the sum claimed with interest and costs

Facts

Gentex Enterprises Ltd supplied M & B Engineers Ltd with water supply materials worth UGX 109,758,000 on credit in 2009, following a written request from the defendant's technical director. Terms of payment were 30 days after supply. The defendant paid UGX 59,000,000 but refused to pay the balance of UGX 50,758,000. The defendant issued multiple cheques in favour of the plaintiff; some bounced and others were not presented. Despite repeated demands, the defendant failed to pay. The plaintiff filed summary suit in 2013. The defendant obtained unconditional leave to defend by consent and filed a defence denying the claim. However, the defendant's lawyers subsequently lost contact with their client. After substituted service was effected via newspaper publication, the matter proceeded ex parte. The plaintiff produced one witness, its sales representative, who proved the supply and non-payment through invoices, cheques, and a statement of account.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant is liable for breach of contract?
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover Uganda shillings 50,758,000 from the Defendant?
  3. What remedies are available to the Plaintiff?

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff in the sum of Uganda shillings 50,758,000.
  • Plaintiff awarded interest at 23% per annum on the principal sum from 1 April 2010 until filing of the suit on 20 February 2013.
  • Plaintiff awarded interest at 21% per annum on the principal sum from date of filing suit until date of judgment.
  • Plaintiff awarded further interest on the aggregate sum at 21% per annum from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Bills of Exchange — Dishonoured Cheques — Entitlement to Judgment
Where a buyer issues cheques as payment for goods supplied and the cheques are dishonoured or bounce on being banked, the seller is entitled to judgment for the amounts on the cheques as a bill of exchange is normally to be treated as cash.
Breach of Contract — Definition and Elements
Breach of contract is the breaking of obligations which the contract imposes, by failure to perform one's own promise, by repudiating it, or by interfering with another party's performance, which confers a right of action for damages on the injured party.
Damages — General Damages and Interest — Compensatory Nature
An award of interest is compensatory and serves the same purpose as an award of general damages. Where no evidence of loss of income or higher loss is adduced, it is sufficient to award reasonable interest to restore the plaintiff to the position they would have been in had the money been paid in time, without also awarding general damages.
Interest — Determination of Reasonable Rate in Commercial Transactions
In determining what constitutes reasonable interest under section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court applies the principle of restitutio in integrum. Awards arising out of commercial or business transactions attract higher interest than awards of general damages which are mainly compensatory. The rate at which the plaintiff would have had to borrow money to replace that of which they were deprived is a safe presumption based on commercial lending practices.
Proof of Debt — Invoice and Statement of Account Evidence
Where tax invoices show who authorised release of goods, who loaded them, the vehicle registration number, and the signature of the person who received them, and these are consistent with a statement of account showing invoice details and payments, the court may accept this as proof of supply and the outstanding debt.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (11)

  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Limited (HCCS No. 542 of 2006)
  • Kotecha v Mohammed [2002] 1 EA 112
  • Kiberu Joseph Mukasa versus Butebi Investment Enterprises Ltd
  • James Lamont and Company Limited v Hyland Limited [1950] 1 KB 585
  • Brown, Shipley and Company Limited v Alicia Hosiery Limited [1966] Rep 668
  • Adjumani Service Station v Frederick Batte (HCCS No. 345 of 2014)
  • Dharamshi v Karsan [1974] 1 EA 41
  • Johnson v Agnew [1979] 1 All ER 883
  • Tate & Lyle Food and Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council [1981] 3 All ER 716
  • Riches v Westminster Bank Ltd [1947] 1 All ER 469
  • ECTA (U) Ltd v Geraldine and Josephine Namukasa (SCCA No. 29 of 1994)

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.

Gentex Enterprise Ltd v M & B Engineers Ltd (Civil Suit No. 74 of 2013) [2016] UGCommC 17 (23 February 2016)
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.