Wakilii

Halerimana Ignitious v Brownstridge Design & Build Co. Ltd and Another (Civil Suit No. 733 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 345 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract with interlocutory judgment entered after defendants failed to file defence
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with declaration of breach, payment of outstanding sum, general damages, interest, and costs awarded

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 defendants breach a purchase agreement by failing to pay the outstanding balance and do not file a defence, the plaintiff is entitled to general damages for economic loss and inconvenience. The court awarded USD 20,000 as the outstanding sum, UGX 15,000,000 in general damages, interest at 20% per annum on the debt from filing until payment, and 6% per annum on general damages from judgment until payment.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with declaration of breach, payment of outstanding sum, general damages, interest, and costs awarded

Facts

On 21 January 2025, the plaintiff and first defendant executed a purchase agreement for two container lodge cottages at Simba Safari Camp. The defendants had previously sold these containers to the plaintiff with a promise to convert them into modern cottages suitable for accommodation, but failed to fulfil this promise. The defendants then agreed to repurchase the containers and refund the purchase price. At execution of the agreement, defendants paid UGX 10,000,000 with an outstanding balance of USD 20,000 (approximately UGX 73,300,000) to be repaid in six monthly instalments of UGX 12,333,333. Despite several reminders, defendants made no further payments. Summons to file defence were served on 7 August 2025, but defendants did not file a defence. Interlocutory judgment was entered on 11 September 2025 under Order 9 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to general damages?
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest and costs of the suit?

Orders

  • It is hereby declared that the Defendants breached the purchase agreement.
  • The Defendants shall pay the Plaintiff the sum of USD 20,000 (United States Dollars Twenty Thousand Only) being the outstanding sum owed by the Defendants arising from the purchase agreement.
  • The Defendants shall pay the Plaintiff general damages amounting to UGX 15,000,000 (Uganda Shillings Fifteen Million Only).
  • Interest at the rate of 20% per annum is awarded on the sum in (2) above from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • Interest at the rate of 6% per annum is awarded on the sum in (3) above from the date of Judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Repurchase Agreement — Failure to Pay Outstanding Balance
Where parties execute a purchase agreement requiring payment of an outstanding balance in instalments and the purchaser fails to make any payments despite reminders, this constitutes a breach of contract entitling the seller to recover the outstanding sum and general damages for economic loss and inconvenience.
Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Formal Proof — Duty of Plaintiff
Where the court sets down a suit for formal proof after a default order has been made under Order 9 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the plaintiff is under a duty to place before the court evidence to sustain the averments in the plaint.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment — Compensatory Nature
General damages should be compensatory in nature and should restore some satisfaction, as far as money can do, to the injured plaintiff. In assessing quantum, courts are guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience suffered, and the nature and extent of the breach or injury.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Discretion of Court — Just and Reasonable Rate
In determining a just and reasonable rate of interest under section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, courts take into account the ever-rising inflation and drastic depreciation of the currency, awarding such rate as would insulate the plaintiff against economic vagaries while not neglecting the prevailing economic value of money.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (7)

  • Kirungi and Another v Kabiya and Others [1987] KLR 347
  • Kabandize John Baptist and 21 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2016)
  • Takiya Kashwahiri and Another v Kajungu Denis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Deo Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation (U) Ltd and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit 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.

Halerimana Ignitious v Brownstridge Design & Build Co. Ltd and Another (Civil Suit No. 733 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 345 (26 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.