Wakilii

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

High Court · [1997] UGHC 29 · 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 money allegedly owed for transport services
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

Suit dismissed. Held that while the defendant acknowledged owing Shs. 32,462,080 to the plaintiff, the plaintiff failed to prove how the debt was incurred under the terms of the tender agreement. The plaintiff did not submit invoices or evidence showing services rendered at the agreed rate of Shs. 70 per ton per kilometre as required by the tender document. On balance of probability, the plaintiff did not render the alleged services.

Outcome

Suit dismissed with taxed costs to the defendant

Facts

The plaintiff was awarded a running tender on 4 October 1988 to transport military goods for the Ministry of Defence at a rate of Shs. 70 per ton per kilometre. Prior to the tender award, the plaintiff had transported goods for the Ministry under a different payment procedure. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant owed Shs. 32,462,080 for services rendered. The defendant acknowledged the debt in a letter dated 5 September 1990 written by the officer in charge of accounts requesting payment. However, the plaintiff failed to produce invoices or work tickets showing how the debt was incurred under the tender agreement.

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

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Documentary Evidence of Contract Terms
When the terms of a contract have been reduced to writing, no oral evidence shall be admitted to contradict or vary the clear written terms of the contract except as permitted under the Evidence Act.
Burden of Proof — Breach of Contract Claims
In a claim for breach of contract, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving both the existence of the contract and that services were rendered in accordance with its terms. An acknowledgment of debt by the defendant, while probative, does not discharge the plaintiff's burden to prove how the debt was incurred under the contract.
Pleadings — Denial Without Evidence
A bare denial by the defendant in its pleadings, where unsupported by evidence at trial, is insufficient to discharge the defendant's evidential burden under the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (2)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jaso Enterprises Ltd. v Attorney General (Civil Suit 401 of 1994) [1997] UGHC 29 (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.