Wakilii

HON. Pulkol v HON. Auma Juliana (HCCS 112 of 2014)

High Court · [2019] UGCOMMC 23 · 2019 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 and rescission
Decision
Contract rescinded; Plaintiff awarded full refund of purchase price plus general damages and interest

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 where a vendor sells land represented as 12 acres but delivers only 10.5 acres and fails to rectify the deficiency within a reasonable time, this constitutes fundamental breach entitling the purchaser to rescind the contract and recover the purchase price plus general damages. A delay of nearly six years in remedying a shortfall justified rescission where the buyer's commercial purpose had been frustrated.

Outcome

Contract rescinded; Plaintiff awarded full refund of purchase price plus general damages and interest

Facts

On 31 May 2012, the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a written agreement for the purchase of 12 acres of land in Bukimu Bulemezi East for UGX 324,000,000. The agreement warranted the land was 12 acres and free of encumbrances. The Plaintiff paid UGX 130,000,000 at signing and UGX 194,000,000 on 30 June 2012. After payment, a survey revealed the land measured only 10.5 acres, a shortfall of 1.5 acres. The Plaintiff demanded rectification by 7 January 2013. The Defendant acknowledged the shortfall, stating she had purchased it believing it to be 12 acres and discovered the deficiency in 2013. She obtained replacement title for 1.5 acres in 2017, but by then the Plaintiff had filed suit in February 2014, contending his commercial purpose in buying the land for immediate resale had been frustrated by the delay.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant was in breach of contract.
  2. What remedies are available to the Plaintiff.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Defendant fundamentally breached the sale contract dated 31 May 2012 entitling the Plaintiff to rescind the contract.
  • The Defendant to refund UGX 324,000,000 being the entire purchase price paid.
  • The Defendant to pay general damages of UGX 30,000,000.
  • Interest on the refund at 18% per annum from 18 February 2014 until payment in full.
  • Interest on general damages at 6% per annum from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Fundamental Breach — Sale of Land — Shortfall in Acreage
Where a vendor warrants in a sale agreement that land measures a specific acreage but the land delivered measures less than warranted, this constitutes a breach of contract entitling the purchaser to remedies.
Contract Law — Rescission — Right to Rescind — Delay in Remedying Breach
A purchaser is entitled to rescind a contract for sale of land where the vendor fails to remedy a shortfall in acreage within a reasonable time, particularly where the delay frustrates the purchaser's commercial purpose and extends for nearly six years.
Contract Law — Rescission — Refund of Purchase Price
Upon justifiable rescission of a contract for breach, the purchaser is entitled to a full refund of the entire consideration paid to the vendor.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment — Breach of Contract — Loss of Commercial Opportunity
In assessing general damages for breach of a land sale contract, the court considers the deprivation of land, loss of profit from intended commercial ventures, mental anguish, and inflation over the period of breach.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Commercial Rate — Pleadings
An award of interest at a commercial rate requires pleading and proof of the basis for such rate; where a plaintiff claims to have borrowed funds to purchase property but fails to plead this in the plaint, the court will not award interest at the full commercial rate claimed.
Evidence — Witness Credibility — Contradictory Testimony
Where witnesses materially contradict their evidence-in-chief during cross-examination, denying key facts they initially asserted, their testimony lacks credibility and cannot support the party's case.

Cases cited (5)

  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (HCCS No. 13 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (SCCA No. 17 of 1993)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Stephen Mabosi (SCCA No. 1 of 1996)
  • Harbutts Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank & Pump Co Ltd [1970] 1 Ch 447

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

HON. Pulkol v HON. Auma Juliana (HCCS 112 of 2014) [2019] UGCommC 23 (23 August 2019)
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.