Wakilii

Jomo Services Limited v Energo Projekt Niskogradanja Joint Stock Company (Miscellaneous Application No. 1386 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 237 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out Written Statement of Defence in underlying civil suit for breach of contract
Decision
Written Statement of Defence struck out; judgment entered for plaintiff for liquidated sum, general damages, and interest

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

Held that the suit had not abated because it was referred to mediation before the defence was filed, falling within the exceptions to the summons for directions requirement. The Written Statement of Defence was struck out for containing general denials and failing to disclose a reasonable answer to the claim. The defendant admitted the subcontract and the debt but claimed frustration due to non-payment by the employer, yet the subcontract contained no provision making payment contingent on the employer's payment. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the liquidated sum of UGX 1,214,626,613, general damages of UGX 368,100,696, and interest at 8% per annum from judgment until full payment.

Outcome

Written Statement of Defence struck out; judgment entered for plaintiff for liquidated sum, general damages, and interest

Facts

The plaintiff subcontracted with the defendant to provide services for relocation of water utilities for UGX 2,741,053,515. The subcontract provided that interim payment certificates would be paid within 30 days of approval by the Engineer. The Engineer approved payment certificates and the defendant made partial payment, leaving UGX 1,240,142,915 outstanding. The plaintiff took loans to perform the contract. The defendant wrote to the plaintiff's moneylenders acknowledging a debt of UGX 1,214,626,613 and undertaking to pay by the end of the first quarter of financial year 2024/25. The plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 1030 of 2024 for breach of contract. The defendant filed a Written Statement of Defence claiming the contract was frustrated because the employer (Uganda National Roads Authority) had not paid the defendant. The plaintiff applied to strike out the defence as evasive and containing general denials.

Issues

  1. Whether Civil Suit No. 1030 of 2024 abated for failure by the applicant to take out summons for directions?
  2. Whether the Written Statement of Defence in Civil Suit No. 1030 of 2024 should be struck out for being evasive and general?
  3. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Written Statement of Defence filed by the Defendant in Civil Suit No. 1030 of 2024 is struck out for offending the provisions of Order 6 Rules 8 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Judgment is entered in Civil Suit No. 1030 of 2024 for the Plaintiff against the Defendant for the liquidated sum of UGX 1,214,626,613.
  • General damages of UGX 368,100,696 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Interest on the decretal sum and on the general damages at 8% per annum from the date of default till full payment.
  • Costs of this application and of the suit are awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summons for Directions — Abatement — Effect of Mediation Referral
Where a suit has been referred to mediation before the defence is filed, the underlying legal proceedings are held in abeyance, effectively pausing the rules and timelines associated with the suit, and the suit falls within the exceptional circumstances exempting it from the requirement to take out summons for directions under Order 11A rule 1(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Defence — General Denials — Order 6 Rules 8 and 10
A general denial is not sufficient in a defendant's statement of defence. Where it is alleged that a party received a certain sum of money, it is not enough to simply deny receiving that specific amount; the party must deny receiving that sum or any part of it, or must state the exact amount actually received. If an allegation is made with specific circumstances, a general denial is insufficient; the response must address those circumstances directly.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Defence — Test for Striking Out — Order 6 Rule 30
A defence may be struck out under Order 6 rule 30(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules if the court is satisfied that even assuming all the allegations made are true and can be proved, those facts would still not amount to a viable defence to the claim. The power is to be exercised only in plain and obvious cases and with caution and restraint.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Payment Terms — Frustration
Where a subcontract provides for payment within a specified period upon approval by an engineer, and contains no provision making payment contingent on payment from a head contractor's employer, a subcontractor's claim that the contract is frustrated by non-payment from the employer does not constitute a valid defence to a claim for breach of contract for non-payment.
Contract Law — Damages — General Damages for Delayed Payment — Interest as Compensation
In cases of delayed repayment of money, additional general damages are not awarded separately; instead, compensation is provided in the form of interest, calculated based on prevailing interest rate and inflation during the period of delay, to reflect the profit that the money would have generated during the breach period.
Contract Law — Damages — Punitive Damages — When Not Awarded
Punitive damages are awarded only where the defendant's conduct is wanton, disclosing fraud, malice, violence, cruelty, insolence, or contumelious disregard of the plaintiff's rights. Where a defendant is willing to settle the debt, reflecting commitment, transparency, responsibility and good faith, punitive damages are not warranted.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (28)

  • Nile Bank v Thomas Kato and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1190 of 1999)
  • MHK Engineering Services Ltd v Mcdowell Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 825 of 2015)
  • Auposits Freight Services v Julius Karamgi and Another (Civil Suit No. 409 of 1995)
  • Asaba Charles and Another v Kafeero Andrew (Miscellaneous Application No. 2004 of 2021)
  • Turyamureba v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 436 of 1989)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Remmington v Scoles [1897] Ch 1
  • Libyan Arab Uganda Bank v M/s Intrepco Limited [1985] HCB 73
  • Kiggundu Catherine Nazziwa v Daniel Serwaniko & Busiro Planters Ltd [1972] HCB 32
  • Kamuhanda Joseph v B. Masajegi & Stephen Wambuzi [1977] HCB 79
  • Kayondo H.M.B. Sc. v Attorney General [1988-90] HCB 127
  • Turyamureba George Brown v Attorney General [1992-93] HCB 214
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 13 of 1993)
  • Erukana Kuwe v Isaac Patrick Matovu and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 177 of 2003)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
  • Charles Acire v M. Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Nilecom Limited v Kodjo Enterprises (Civil Suit No. 0018 of 2014)
  • Sowah v Bank for Housing & Construction [1982-83] 2 GLR 1324
  • Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323 (1974)
  • Lippl v Haines (1989) 18 NSWLR 621
  • TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Anning
  • Gray v Motor Accident Commission
  • Wangala Philip v Steel And Tube Industries Limited (Civil Suit No. 212 of 2018)
  • DFCU Bank Limited v Donna Kamuli (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2016)
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 234 of 2011)
  • Kinyera v The Management Committee of Laroo Boarding Primary School (High Court Civil Suit No. 099 of 2013)
  • B.P. Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2) [1979] 1 WLR 783

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jomo Services Limited v Energo Projekt Niskogradanja Joint Stock Company (Miscellaneous Application No. 1386 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 237 (18 July 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.