John Baptist Walusimbi v Wilberforce Sserukubwa (Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2016)
Observed later treatment
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 appellant, though Managing Director of Associated Consulting Engineers & Co. Ltd, had no authority to sell the company's motor vehicle in his personal capacity. The sale agreement was void ab initio. The appellant breached the contract by failing to deliver the log book as promised. The respondent was entitled to a refund of the purchase price (UGX 5,000,000) and compensation for alternative transport expenses (UGX 43,250,000). Appeal dismissed.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; appellant ordered to refund purchase price and pay alternative transport expenses with interest and costs
Facts
On 28 August 2015, the appellant sold motor vehicle UAF 959K to the respondent for UGX 5,000,000, promising to deliver the log book the next day. The appellant failed to provide the log book. The respondent discovered the vehicle was registered in the names of Associated Consulting Engineers & Co. Ltd, not the appellant. The appellant was Managing Director of that company but sold the vehicle in his personal capacity. Unable to insure the vehicle without the log book, the respondent hired alternative transport for use in presidential campaigns at a cost of UGX 43,250,000. The respondent sued for refund of the purchase price and alternative transport expenses. The trial magistrate found for the respondent. The appellant appealed.
Issues
- Whether the appellant/defendant acted in breach of the sale contract by selling a motor vehicle that was not registered in his name and failing to deliver the log book as promised.
- Whether the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to the remedies sought, including refund of the purchase price and compensation for alternative transport expenses.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Refund of purchase price of UGX 5,000,000/= to the respondent.
- Payment of UGX 43,250,000/= to the respondent for alternative transport expenses.
- Interest at court rate of 6% per annum on the decretal amount from date of judgment until payment in full.
- Costs to the respondent in the High Court and in the lower court.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Sale of Goods Act Cap 82 s.13(a)
- Contracts Act s.33
- Civil Procedure Act s.26(2)
- Civil Procedure Act s.27(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order XII
Cases cited (21)
- Javis v May, Davies Smith, Vandervell & Co [1936] 1 KB 399
- Kyoyeta v Mutebi (Civil Suit No. 781 of 2014)
- Nalwadda v Uganda Aids Commission (Civil Suit No. 67 of 2011)
- Musoke v Departed Asians Custodian Board (1990-1994) EA 219
- Zakaria Onno v Olando & Ors (HCCA No. 25 of 2013)
- Nassozi & Anor v Kalule (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2012)
- Ecta (U) Ltd v Geraldine S. Namurimu & Anor (SCCA No. 29 of 1994)
- Salomon v Salomon & Company [1897] AC 22
- Kabu Auctioneers & Court Bailiffs & Muljbhai Madhavani & Company Ltd v F.K. Motors Ltd (SCCA No. 19 of 2009)
- Prophet Daniel Muwanguzi v Teopista Nakabiri (HCCS No. 40 of 2011)
- Laysaght v Edwards [1876] ChD 449
- Asiimwe Mary v Ssemwanga Godfrey (HCCS No. 128 of 2010)
- Mujuni v Uganda (High Court Criminal Case No. 33 of 2011)
- Mohanlal Kakubhai Radio v Warid (HCCS No. 224 of 2011)
- Company Profiles Uganda Ltd v Mansoor Nyera t/a Digital Tec M/S Digital Tech Ltd (HCCA No. 04 of 2007)
- Sanyu Lwanga Musoke v Sam Galiwango (SCCA No. 48 of 1995)
- Nsagiranabo Erasmus t/a Nsagira Auctioneers & Court Bailiffs v M/S Associated Properties and 2 others (HCMA No. 953 of 2007)
- National Medical Stores v Penjuines Ltd (HCCA No. 29 of 2012)
- Harbutts Plasticine Ltd v Wyne Tank & Pump Co Ltd [1970] 1 Ch B 1147
- Groffin East Africa Fund LLC v Investec Uganda Ltd & 2 Ors (Civil Suit No. 374 of 2011)
- Rowland v. Divall quoted in Chitty on Contracts paragraph p. 1811
Cases citing this judgment (2)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.