Wakilii

Incwright Limited v George Mpagi (Civil Suit No. 93 of 2017)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 142 · 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 and payment for work done
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with payment of contract sum, general damages, interest, and costs. Defendant's counterclaim dismissed with costs.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 a valid written contract existed between the parties for advertising services from August to October 2015, which was orally extended to April 2016 based on the parties' conduct. The defendant breached the contract by failing to pay the outstanding sum of UGX 52,600,000. The plaintiff was entitled to payment for work done. The court awarded the plaintiff the outstanding contract sum, general damages of UGX 8,000,000, interest at 20% per annum on the contract sum from filing, and 6% per annum on general damages from judgment.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with payment of contract sum, general damages, interest, and costs. Defendant's counterclaim dismissed with costs.

Facts

The defendant contracted the plaintiff to provide advertising space on street poles in Kampala for a three-month period from August to October 2015 at UGX 23,760,000 under a Local Purchase Order. The defendant issued two postdated cheques but only one was encashed. After the initial three months, the parties orally agreed to continue the advertising campaign with some location changes. The plaintiff continued providing services until April 2016. The defendant made partial payments, fully clearing only January 2016 and partially clearing August and September 2015. Despite the plaintiff's reminders and a statement of account showing an outstanding balance of UGX 52,600,000, the defendant refused to pay. The plaintiff removed all advertisements in April 2016. The defendant counterclaimed alleging breach by the plaintiff for incomplete performance, contacting his client directly, and poor workmanship, but failed to appear at trial to prove these allegations.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant?
  2. Whether there was breach of the contract by either party?
  3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to payment for the work done?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff a total sum of UGX 52,600,000 being the money for the work done by the Plaintiff under the contract with the Defendant.
  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff general damages amounting to UGX 8,000,000.
  • Interest is awarded on the sum in (1) above at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • Interest is awarded on the sum in (2) above at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of Judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of this suit are awarded to the Plaintiff.
  • The counterclaim is hereby dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation of Contract — Essential Elements — Capacity, Intention, Consensus, Consideration, Legality, Certainty
For a contract to be valid and legally enforceable, there must be capacity to contract, intention to contract, consensus ad idem, valuable consideration, legality of purpose, and sufficient certainty of terms.
Contract Law — Oral Contracts — Validity and Enforceability — Extension of Written Contract by Conduct
A contract may be oral or written or partly oral and partly written or may be implied from the conduct of the parties. An oral contract is just as valid as a written one provided it has the essentials of a valid contract. Where parties continue performance after expiry of a written contract term and one party continues to accept services and make payments, an oral extension of the contract may be inferred from their conduct.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Failure to Pay — Non-Performance of Payment Obligation
Where a party fails to do what he agreed to do under a contract or does not do it properly, he is in breach of the contract. A party who fails to pay sums due and outstanding under a contract requiring monthly payments breaches that contract.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — He Who Alleges Must Prove — Failure to Appear and Prove Counterclaim
He who alleges must prove. Where a defendant makes allegations in a counterclaim but fails to appear at trial despite being given opportunities to do so, the counterclaim fails for want of proof.
Contract Law — Remedies for Breach — General Damages — Assessment and Quantum
General damages are awarded at the discretion of the court and are compensatory in nature. The award should put the injured party in the same position as he would have been had he not sustained the wrong. 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.
Civil Procedure — Interest — Discretion of Court — Rate of Interest on Commercial Transactions
Interest is awarded at the discretion of the court, but the court should exercise the discretion judiciously taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The court may decline to award an unreasonably high rate of interest where no convincing justification is provided.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (17)

  • JK Patel v Spear Motors Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1991)
  • Afro Kai Limited v Uganda Development Bank Ltd (Civil Suit No. 31 of 2014)
  • John Bwiza v Patrick Yowasi Kadama (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2011)
  • Sharif Osman v Haji Haruna Mulangwa (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1995)
  • Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (High Court Civil Suit No. 580 of 2003)
  • William Kasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 1326 of 2000)
  • Omega Bank Plc Vs O.B.C Limited [2005] 8 NWLR (pt.928) 547
  • Fina Bank Ltd Vs Spares and Industries Ltd [2000] 1 EA 52
  • Hon. Justice Anup Singh Choudry v Mohinder Singh Channa and Another (Civil Suit No. 335 of 2014)
  • Mogas (U) Ltd v Benzina (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 88 of 2013)
  • Meridiana Africa Airlines (U) Ltd v Avmax Spares (EA) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 111 of 2017)
  • Annette Tumusiime v Luis Gugones Aranel & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 269 of 2005)
  • Kabandize John Baptist and 21 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2016)
  • Takiya Kashwahiri & Anor v Kajungu Denis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank Vs Deo Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation (U) Ltd and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
  • Uganda Development Bank Vs Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] HCB 35

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Incwright Limited v George Mpagi (Civil Suit No. 93 of 2017) [2025] UGCommC 142 (26 May 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.