Wakilii

Haji Mubarak Kyakulaga v Mutwalibi Tezita (High Court Civil Suit No. 492 of 2004)

High Court · [2004] UGCOMMC 39 · 2004 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 and breach of contract
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff for UGX 12,000,000 special damages, UGX 1,500,000 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

Court held that the plaintiff, as sole proprietor of Kidogo Kidogo Enterprises, had locus to sue in his own name. Defendant was found indebted in the sum of UGX 12,000,000 for goods supplied on credit, evidenced by invoices and a signed undertaking. Court awarded special damages of UGX 12,000,000, general damages of UGX 1,500,000 for breach of contract, and interest at 18% per annum on special damages from date of filing until payment in full.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff for UGX 12,000,000 special damages, UGX 1,500,000 general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

The plaintiff, a businessman in Jinja, supplied goods on credit (cooking oil, wheat flour, sugar, food colour, yeast, and salt) to the defendant's bakery between February and June 2004. The defendant obtained goods totalling UGX 12,079,500 on credit. After the defendant made numerous promises to pay, he signed an undertaking on 2 June 2004 promising to pay the outstanding amount within two weeks. The defendant paid UGX 79,500 after signing the undertaking but failed to pay the remaining UGX 12,000,000 despite repeated demands. The plaintiff's lawyers sent a demand notice on 17 June 2004 requiring payment within seven days, which was not honoured. The case proceeded ex parte after the defendant and his counsel failed to appear at the hearing on 9 November 2004.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff has locus to institute the suit.
  2. Whether the Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff in the sums claimed.
  3. What remedies are available.

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff.
  • Special damages of UGX 12,000,000 awarded.
  • General damages of UGX 1,500,000 awarded.
  • Interest on special damages at 18% per annum from date of filing until payment in full.
  • Interest on general damages at court rate from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Locus Standi — Sole Proprietor Trading Under Business Name
A sole proprietor of a registered business is entitled to sue in his own name for debts owed to the business, upon proof of sole proprietorship through registration documents.
Ex Parte Proceedings — Unjustified Absence of Defendant and Counsel
Where defence counsel receives service of a hearing notice but fails to attend without valid justification, and where counsel's stated conflicting engagement is later found to be scheduled for a different date, the court may proceed ex parte under Order 9 rule 17(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 4 of the Judicature (Amendment) Act 2002.
Proof of Debt — Credit Transactions — Documentary Evidence
In a suit for recovery of money owed for goods supplied on credit, debt may be proved by oral testimony supported by invoices signed by the debtor and a written undertaking to pay.
Special Damages — Standard of Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Where a plaintiff leads oral and documentary evidence proving the quantum of loss, including invoices showing goods supplied and unpaid, special damages will be awarded.
Breach of Contract — General Damages — Business Inconvenience
Where a defendant breaches a contract to pay for goods supplied on credit and the plaintiff's business suffers as a result, including loss of credit facilities with suppliers and inability to supply other customers, the plaintiff is entitled to general damages for the inconvenience and business disruption.
Interest on Special Damages — Business Use of Money
Where money withheld was intended for business purposes and the plaintiff was kept out of use of it by the defendant's breach, the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the sum awarded, reflecting the loss of opportunity to invest the money in the business.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Ereku Enterprises v Attorney General [1991] HCB 68
  • Nakawa Trading Co. Ltd v CMB (Civil Suit No. 137 of 1991)
  • Robialac Paints (U) Ltd v K.B. Constructions Ltd [1976] HCB 45
  • Superior Construction And Engineering Ltd v Notay Engineering Industries (1981) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 702 of 1989)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Haji Mubarak Kyakulaga v Mutwalibi Tezita (High Court Civil Suit No. 492 of 2004) [2004] UGCommC 39 (22 November 2004)
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.