Wakilii

Greatlakes Coffee Company Ltd v Bakarwerenza Moses (Civil Suit No.19 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1021 · 2025 Counter-Claim Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Counter-claim heard ex parte after plaintiff's suit abated for failure to extract summons for directions
Decision
Counter-claim dismissed with no order as to costs; parties encouraged to mediate

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

Counter-claim dismissed where counter-claimant failed to prove existence of enforceable contract, quantity of coffee delivered, or agreed price. Original contract not produced; only photocopy marked for identification. Delivery notes lacked authentication by recipient. Claimed quantity and price contradicted by counter-claimant's own evidence. Audit report inadmissible as hearsay where auditor not called as witness. Counter-defendant's failure to file defence does not amount to admission of poorly evidenced claim.

Outcome

Counter-claim dismissed with no order as to costs; parties encouraged to mediate

Facts

Between 2018 and 2019, the defendant supplied coffee to the plaintiff company under an alleged agreement dated 17 August 2018. The plaintiff's suit for recovery of UGX 90,452,080 abated for failure to extract summons for directions. The defendant's counter-claim for UGX 274,818,950 (alleged unpaid balance for coffee supplied) proceeded ex parte after the plaintiff was served but failed to appear. The counter-claimant alleged he supplied 329,477 kg of coffee at UGX 5,600 per kg plus a bonus of UGX 250 per kg, but was only paid UGX 1,652,554,000. The counter-claimant produced a photocopy of the contract, delivery reports (some unsigned or signed by only one party), bank statements, and an audit report. The auditor was not called as a witness.

Issues

  1. Whether the Counter-Defendant is indebted to the Counter-Claimant to a tune of UGX 274,818,950.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Counter-claim dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Parties have opportunity to mediate if they wish, as majority of transactions were never reconciled.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Best Evidence Rule — Production of Original Documents
Documentary evidence must be proved by primary evidence, which is the document itself. A photocopy without justification for the absence of the original carries negligible evidential weight.
Contract Law — Formation — Essential Terms — Certainty
A contract must be sufficiently certain to be enforceable. Vague or contradictory evidence of essential terms such as price renders the agreement unenforceable.
Contract Law — Performance — Proof of Delivery — Authentication of Delivery Notes
For a delivery note to serve as credible evidence of receipt, it must be authenticated by the recipient. An unsigned or self-signed delivery note for valuable commodities is inherently unreliable and cannot establish performance.
Evidence — Expert Evidence — Audit Reports — Admissibility and Probative Value
An audit report constitutes inadmissible hearsay where the auditor is not called as a witness. Even if admissible, an audit report based on unverified and contradictory source documents has no probative value. The court as ultimate arbiter of facts cannot delegate its fact-finding role to an unverified document.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Burden of Proof — Failure to File Defence
A counter-defendant's failure to file a reply to a counter-claim does not amount to an admission of a poorly evidenced and contradictory claim. The court retains a duty to evaluate the quality of evidence presented even in ex parte proceedings and must be satisfied that the evidence substantiates the claim.
Contract Law — Breach — Proof of Quantum — Foundational Facts
Where the calculation of a debt is premised on unproven foundational facts such as quantity delivered and agreed price, the entire calculation collapses and the claimant fails to discharge the burden of proving the quantum of debt.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (10)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Asha Ali Suleman and Another v Nassanga Aysha Salma and Another (Civil Suit No. 338 of 2015)
  • Mufumba Fredrick v Waako Lastone (Revision Cause No. 006 of 2011)
  • Pimer v Bakayana and 4 Others (Civil Suit No. 319 of 2019)
  • Kiraza Paul v Musa Sekeba (Civil Appeal No. 58 of 2012)
  • Scammell and Nephew Ltd v Ouston [1941] AC 251
  • Sebuliba v Cooperative Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2002)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga and Others (1997) KALR 190
  • Kamuzata Waligo v Wasajja Denis (Civil Appeal No. 006 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Greatlakes Coffee Company Ltd v Bakarwerenza Moses (Civil Suit No.19 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 1021 (23 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.