Wakilii

Hon Mulindwa Birimumaso v Government C. P. Corporation (H.C.C.S. No.674 of 1998)

High Court · [2001] UGCOMMC 7 · 2001 Suit Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of purchase price difference; defendant raised preliminary objection on absence of cause of action
Decision
Suit struck out for want of cause of action

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 member of parliament had no cause of action against the defendant statutory corporation for the difference in price between a 9 ton truck he contracted to purchase and the 6 ton truck he accepted under a parliamentary vehicle purchase scheme. The doctrine of estoppel by conduct applied where the plaintiff accepted delivery of the smaller vehicle and instructed deductions from his emoluments for the larger truck, with proceeds remitted to Treasury rather than the defendant. Suit struck out with costs.

Outcome

Suit struck out for want of cause of action

Facts

In early 1997, a vehicle purchase scheme was established for members of the 6th Parliament. Each member could choose a vehicle and obtain a loan of Shs 48,000,000 from Treasury, repayable through monthly salary deductions. The plaintiff, a member for Bukoto West constituency, elected to purchase a 9 ton Jiefang truck at Shs 46,500,000. The defendant statutory corporation was appointed executing agency. The plaintiff confirmed his order in February 1997, and Treasury issued a Promissory Note in March 1997. However, in April 1997 the plaintiff received and accepted a 6 ton truck instead. He nonetheless instructed the Clerk to Parliament to make monthly deductions from his salary for the full purchase price, which were remitted to Treasury. The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover the price difference between the 9 ton and 6 ton trucks.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff has a cause of action against the Defendant for the difference between the purchase price paid for a 9 ton truck and the 6 ton truck actually delivered.

Orders

  • Suit struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the Defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Necessary Elements
A cause of action consists of those facts which a plaintiff must prove in order to succeed in the claim.
Contract Law — Estoppel by Conduct — Acceptance of Performance
Where a party accepts delivery of goods different from those contracted for and instructs payment for the goods originally contracted for to be made to a third party rather than the contracting party, the doctrine of estoppel by conduct will apply to prevent the party from later claiming the difference in value.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out — Absence of Cause of Action
A suit will be struck out where even if the plaintiff proves all alleged facts, the plaintiff would not be entitled to judgment due to the application of equitable doctrines such as estoppel.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hon Mulindwa Birimumaso v Government C. P. Corporation (H.C.C.S. No.674 of 1998) [2001] UGCommC 7 (18 October 2001)
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.