Wakilii

Hajji Mutaasa Kafeero v Seguya Yassah Matovu (Originating Summons No. 18 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 252 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Originating summons seeking determination of questions arising under a sale and purchase agreement
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with declaration and order for refund

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 where goods supplied under a sale by description do not correspond with the contractual description, the buyer is entitled to reject the goods and treat the contract as repudiated. The defendant supplied a 2022 Range Rover when the agreement specified a 2023 model. The plaintiff validly rejected the vehicle and was entitled to a full refund of UGX 300,000,000 under the mutual agreement and the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with declaration and order for refund

Facts

On 1st February 2024, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a sale and purchase agreement for a Range Rover Model 2023, Grey in colour, for UGX 900,000,000. The plaintiff paid an initial deposit of UGX 300,000,000 and one monthly instalment of UGX 50,000,000. The defendant supplied a 2022 model Range Rover, which the plaintiff immediately rejected. On 1st April 2024, the parties entered a mutual agreement whereby the defendant agreed to source a 2023 model or refund the money paid. The defendant refunded only UGX 50,000,000 on 29th April 2024 and refused to refund the balance of UGX 300,000,000, claiming it was non-refundable. The defendant disputed the existence of the agreement specifying the 2023 model, claiming the original agreement did not specify the year. The plaintiff brought an originating summons seeking interpretation of the agreement and a refund.

Issues

  1. Whether Motor Vehicle Registration No. UBQ 436E, Range Rover, Grey in colour supplied by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, corresponds with the description in the Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 1st February 2024.
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a refund of UGX 300,000,000 paid to the Defendant under the said Sale and Purchase Agreement.

Orders

  • A declaration that Motor Vehicle Registration No. UBQ 436E, Range Rover, Grey in colour, did not correspond with the description in the Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 1st February 2024.
  • The Respondent shall refund UGX 300,000,000 paid by the Applicant under the said Sale and Purchase Agreement.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Sale of Goods — Sale by Description — Implied Condition of Correspondence
Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied condition that the goods shall correspond with the description, and a supply which offends the description as ordered by the buyer entitles the buyer to reject the goods, consider the contract repudiated, and demand a refund of the purchase price paid together with damages.
Contract Interpretation — Construction of Written Agreements — Intention of Parties
The object of all construction of the terms of a written agreement is to discover therefrom the intention of the parties to the agreement. The cardinal presumption is that parties have intended what they have in fact said, so that their words must be construed as they stand. However, the court may resolve an ambiguity by looking at the commercial purpose and the factual background against which the agreement was made.
Burden of Proof — Negative Assertions — Preliminary Objections
The burden of proof lies with the party who alleges a given fact and desires the court to give judgment on any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he or she asserts. Where a party raises a preliminary objection based on a negative assertion, that party bears the burden to prove the assertion.
Breach of Contract — Repudiation — Right to Refund
Where a buyer rejects goods that do not correspond with the contractual description and the parties subsequently enter a mutual agreement whereby the seller agrees to source conforming goods or refund the money paid, the buyer's election to treat the contract as repudiated entitles the buyer to be discharged from performance of obligations under the contract and to a refund of money paid for consideration which has wholly failed.
Contract Interpretation — Reading Documents as a Whole
The contents of a document must be read as a whole, and not in parts, to establish the meaning and purpose of words used in the agreement. The rules of interpretation require the court to take expressions in their context and to construe them with proper regard to the subject matter with which the instrument deals and the objects it seeks to achieve.
Originating Summons — Determination of Questions of Construction
Any person claiming to be interested under a deed, will, or other written instrument may apply by originating summons for the determination of any question of construction arising under the instrument. The originating summons should set out a concise statement of the questions which the plaintiff seeks the court to decide and contain sufficient particulars to identify the cause of action.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (7)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hajji Mutaasa Kafeero v Seguya Yassah Matovu (Originating Summons No. 18 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 252 (30 July 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.