Wakilii

Jaso Enterprises Limited v Attorney General (Civil Suit 401 of 1994)

High Court · [1997] UGHC 16 · 1997 Judgment for Defendant 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 unpaid debt
Decision
Suit dismissed with taxed costs to the defendant

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 dismissed the plaintiff's claim for breach of contract and unpaid transport services. The court held that where contractual terms are reduced to writing under a tender document prescribing specific invoicing procedures, oral evidence contradicting those terms is inadmissible under Evidence Act s.90. The plaintiff failed to produce duplicate invoices or documentation showing services were rendered in accordance with the tender's specified rate of Shs. 70 per ton per kilometre, and failed to prove on balance of probabilities that the alleged services were rendered.

Outcome

Suit dismissed with taxed costs to the defendant

Facts

On 4 October 1988, the Military Tender Board awarded Jaso Enterprises Ltd a running tender to transport military goods at Shs. 70 per ton per kilometre. The plaintiff alleged it rendered transport services and invoiced the Ministry of Defence but was not paid, claiming Shs. 32,462,080 remained outstanding. The Ministry acknowledged the debt in a letter dated 5 September 1990. The plaintiff had previously transported military goods before the tender award and was paid through work tickets processed by the Traffic Officer. After the tender award, the plaintiff claimed the same procedure continued with the addition of a tender copy to invoices. The defendant denied owing the sum and denied that services were rendered.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff rendered the services alleged in the plaint.
  2. Whether the defendant fully paid for the services rendered.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought.
  4. Quantum of damages, if any.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • Plaintiff to pay taxed costs to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Documentary Evidence — Admissibility of Oral Evidence — Section 90 Evidence Act
Where the terms of a contract have been reduced to the form of a document, no oral evidence is admissible to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from those terms except as permitted by section 78 of the Evidence Act.
Tender Contracts — Compliance with Prescribed Procedures — Burden of Proof
Where a tender document prescribes specific procedures for invoicing and payment, a party claiming payment under the tender must prove that services were rendered in accordance with those prescribed procedures and at the specified contractual rates.
Burden of Proof — Acknowledgment of Debt Distinguished from Proof of Services
Acknowledgment by a defendant of a sum owed does not by itself prove that services giving rise to the debt were rendered in accordance with contractual terms; the plaintiff must still prove how the debt was incurred under the terms of the contract.

Legislation cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jaso Enterprises Limited v Attorney General (Civil Suit 401 of 1994) [1997] UGHC 16 (24 February 1997)
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.