Wakilii

GIZA Systems (U) Limited v Central Electricals International Limited (Civil Suit 531 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 369 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of unpaid price for goods supplied; default judgment entered after defendant failed to file defence
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff; Defendant ordered to pay the principal sum, general damages, 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

Held that where a defendant fails to file a defence and default judgment is entered, the plaintiff must still prove its case on formal proof. Where the defendant breached a contract of sale by failing to pay for goods supplied, the plaintiff is entitled to general damages to compensate for economic loss and inconvenience suffered. Pre-litigation legal fees are recoverable as costs of the suit under s.27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, not as special damages.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff; Defendant ordered to pay the principal sum, general damages, interest and costs

Facts

The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with electronic security systems equipment for the Defendant's Carrefour Metroplex project on six occasions between August 2020 and May 2022. The contracts provided for payment in three tranches: 20% on order, 70% on delivery, and 10% on completion and handover. The total value of goods supplied was UGX 709,540,026. The Defendant paid 90% of the orders placed in August 2020 but made no payment for goods delivered in February 2021, May 2021, and May 2022, leaving an outstanding balance of UGX 97,630,928. Despite reminders and involvement of lawyers, the Defendant failed to pay. The Plaintiff instituted suit on 3 May 2024. The Defendant was served with summons on 28 May 2024 but filed no defence. Interlocutory judgment was entered on 27 June 2024 and the matter proceeded to formal proof.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to general damages?
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to special damages?

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff.
  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff UGX 97,630,928/= being the outstanding sum owed arising from the supply of electronic security systems equipment.
  • The Defendant shall pay general damages of UGX 15,000,000/=.
  • Interest at 20% per annum on UGX 97,630,928/= from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • Interest at 6% per annum on general damages from the date of Judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Formal Proof — Duty of Plaintiff to Prove Case
Where the court sets down a suit for formal proof after a default order has been made, the plaintiff remains under a duty to place before the court evidence to sustain the averments in the plaint.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Damages — Entitlement and Measure
Under s.60(1) of the Contracts Act Cap. 284, where there is breach of contract, the party who suffers the breach is entitled to receive compensation for any loss or damage caused. General damages are meant to restore the wronged party to the position it would have been in had there been no breach.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment — Guiding Factors
In assessing the quantum of general damages, courts are mainly guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience that a party might have been put through, and the nature and extent of the breach or injury suffered. Damages should be compensatory and restore some satisfaction, as far as money can do, to the injured plaintiff.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Pre-Litigation Legal Fees — Special Damages or Costs of Suit
Costs incurred in reasonable attempts to find solutions to problems arising between parties in connection with issues to be decided in contemplated or pending litigation fall within the definition of costs of the litigation. A court's order for costs of proceedings under s.27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act extends to costs incidental to litigation without any requirement for specific wording, and pre-litigation legal fees are therefore recoverable as part of the costs of the suit, not as special damages.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Determination of Just and Reasonable Rate
Under s.26 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court may award interest that is just and reasonable, exercising its discretion judiciously and taking into account all the circumstances of the case. In determining a just and reasonable rate, courts take into account the ever-rising inflation and drastic depreciation of the currency, awarding a rate that would not neglect the prevailing economic value of money but would insulate the plaintiff against economic vagaries, inflation and depreciation in the event the money awarded is not promptly paid.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (13)

  • Prof. Ephraim Rwabu Kamuntu v Attorney General (HCCS No. 38 of 2016)
  • Waiglobe (U) Limited v Sai Beverages Ltd (HCCS No. 16 of 2017)
  • Kirungi and Another v Kabiya and Others [1987] KLR 347
  • Kabandize John Baptist and 21 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (CACA No. 36 of 2016)
  • Takiya Kashwahiri and Another v Kajungu Denis (CACA No. 85 of 2011)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Deo Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Besimira Moses v Attorney General (HCCS No. 143 of 2015)
  • Mugabi John v Attorney General (HCCS No. 133 of 2002)
  • W.M Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
  • Abraham Yohannes v Absa Bank (HCCS No. 402 of 2022)
  • Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation (U) Ltd and Another (SCCA No. 1 of 2000)
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Uganda Ltd (HCCS 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.

GIZA Systems (U) Limited v Central Electricals International Limited (Civil Suit 531 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 369 (20 November 2024)
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.