Wakilii

Hasham v Nansi (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1956)

East African Court of Appeal · [1957] EACA 168 · 1957 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from High Court judgment on contract dispute and damages assessment
Decision
Appeal allowed; damages reduced to nominal amount; respondent to bear 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 damages for loss of profit on a sub-sale are only recoverable where such loss was within the reasonable contemplation of both parties at the time of contract as a probable result of breach. The appellant had no knowledge of the sub-sale and the loss was too remote. Appeal allowed; damages reduced from Shs. 100,000/- to nominal damages.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; damages reduced to nominal amount; respondent to bear costs

Facts

The appellant agreed to sell and deliver certain goods to the respondent. The appellant failed to deliver. Unknown to the appellant, the respondent had entered into a sub-sale contract at a higher price. The respondent sued for damages including loss of profit on the sub-sale. The trial court awarded Shs. 100,000/- in damages. The appellant appealed, arguing the damages were excessive and too remote as he had no knowledge of the sub-sale.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant's failure to deliver goods constituted a breach of contract.
  2. Whether the respondent was entitled to recover damages for loss of profit on a sub-sale.
  3. Whether the damages awarded by the trial court were excessive and not reasonably foreseeable.
  4. Whether the respondent took reasonable steps to mitigate his loss.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment of the High Court set aside.
  • Damages reduced to nominal amount.
  • Respondent to pay costs of the appeal and of the trial.

Rules and key headnotes

Damages — Remoteness — Loss of Profit on Sub-Sale
Damages for loss of profit on a sub-sale are only recoverable where such loss was within the reasonable contemplation of both parties at the time of contract as a probable result of breach, applying the rule in Hadley v Baxendale.
Damages — Foreseeability — Knowledge of Special Circumstances
Where a seller has no knowledge of a sub-sale or other special circumstances at the time of contract, loss of profit on that sub-sale is too remote and not recoverable as damages for breach.
Damages — Mitigation — Duty to Mitigate Loss
A plaintiff claiming damages for breach of contract must take all reasonable steps to mitigate his loss. Failure to mitigate may reduce or extinguish the claim for damages.
Burden of Proof — Proof of Damage
The burden of proving the quantum of damage lies on the plaintiff. Where the evidence of loss is speculative or insufficiently proved, only nominal damages may be awarded.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Indian Contract Act s.73

Cases cited (6)

  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex. 341
  • Victoria Laundry v Newman [1949] 2 K.B. 528
  • Monarch Steamship Co. v Karlshamns [1949] A.C. 196
  • Cory v Thames Ironworks (1868) L.R. 3 Q.B. 181
  • Wertheim v Chicoutimi [1911] A.C. 301
  • British Westinghouse v Underground [1912] A.C. 673

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hasham v Nansi (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1956) [1957] EACA 168 (15 March 1957)
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.