Wakilii

Jade Services Uganda Limited v Starline Transporters Company Limited (Civil Suit 1044 of 2023)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 241 · 2026 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 recovery of debt
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff; defendant ordered to pay principal sum and general damages

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 High Court held that the defendant breached a service level agreement by failing to remit UGX 864,644,319 collected from the plaintiff's customers. The court found the debt proved on the balance of probabilities based on audit evidence and the defendant's own admission. The plaintiff was awarded the principal sum, general damages of UGX 40,000,000 for financial loss and inconvenience, interest on general damages at court rate from judgment, and costs. The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff; defendant ordered to pay principal sum and general damages

Facts

On 21 July 2019, the plaintiff (Jade Services, which operates the Jumia platform in Uganda) and the defendant (a logistics company) entered into a service level agreement for last-mile delivery services. The defendant was required to collect packages from the plaintiff's warehouse, deliver them to customers, collect cash payments, and remit those payments to the plaintiff's account by the next working day. Between January 2022 and March 2023, the plaintiff's finance team discovered discrepancies between payments received by the defendant and amounts deposited. An internal audit revealed the defendant had failed to remit UGX 864,644,319 from 4,476 transactions. The defendant's director acknowledged the debt in an email admitting approximately USD 254,000 was owed. The parties met in January 2023 and agreed the defendant would be paid only 25% of monthly commissions with the remaining 75% servicing the debt, but the defendant continued to default. The plaintiff issued a demand notice through lawyers on 3 July 2023; the defendant responded through its advocates stating it was unable to comply.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of UGX 864,644,319.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The defendant breached the Service Level Agreement of 21st July 2019 between itself and the plaintiff.
  • The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff UGX 864,644,319 being outstanding remittances due to the plaintiff.
  • The plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 40,000,000 for the financial loss and inconvenience occasioned by the defendant's actions.
  • The plaintiff is awarded interest on general damages at court rate per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • The plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit.
  • The defendant's counterclaim is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Courier Service Agreement — Failure to Remit Collected Funds
Where a logistics service provider contracts to collect cash payments from customers and remit those payments to the principal by the next working day, failure to remit the collected funds constitutes a breach of the service level agreement, and the defaulting party is liable for the full amount not remitted.
Evidence — Standard of Proof — Civil Cases — Audit Evidence and Admission
In civil proceedings, where the plaintiff produces detailed audit evidence showing specific transactions for which funds were not remitted, and the defendant admits the debt (though claiming a lower figure) without adducing evidence to prove the difference, the plaintiff satisfies the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Set-Off Defence — Contractual Justification for Non-Performance
A party who fails to perform its contractual obligations cannot rely on the other party's alleged breach as justification for non-performance where the alleged breach relates to payment of commission earned on transactions that were never properly completed or for which funds were not remitted as contractually required.
Contract Law — General Damages — Assessment — Financial Loss and Business Closure
General damages for breach of contract are assessed considering the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience suffered, and the nature and extent of injury, including where the breach caused financial loss leading to closure of part of the plaintiff's business operations.
Contract Law — Interest — Contractual Interest Rate — Award in Absence of Agreement
Where parties to a contract have not agreed on an interest rate for late payment, a court will not award interest at a rate claimed by the plaintiff but not stipulated in the contract.

Cases cited (3)

  • Hadley v Baxendale (1894) 9 Exch 341
  • Robert Cuossens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] EA 305

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jade Services Uganda Limited v Starline Transporters Company Limited (Civil Suit 1044 of 2023) [2026] UGCommC 241 (30 April 2026)
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.