Wakilii

Kabaco Uganda Limited v Turyahikayo (Civil Suit 14 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 316 · 2023 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 heard ex parte after defendant failed to appear despite filing a defence
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff for the sum claimed with interest and costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 where a party acknowledges a debt in writing and provides security for payment but fails to honour the obligation, breach of contract is established. The plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that there was a valid contract between the parties for supply of cement and that the defendant breached it by failing to pay the outstanding sum of UGX 65,546,000 despite acknowledging the debt. The court awarded the decretal sum with interest but declined to award damages for lack of proof of specific inconvenience suffered.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff for the sum claimed with interest and costs

Facts

The plaintiff supplied cement to the defendant between 2018 and 2019. Payment for supplies was not made as agreed and an outstanding debt of UGX 66,546,000 accumulated. In September 2020, the defendant acknowledged the debt in writing. The parties entered a written agreement dated 30 September 2020 for ongoing supply of cement, under which the defendant agreed to pay UGX 1,000,000 per delivery to clear arrears and pay for new transactions within fourteen days. As security, the defendant provided a logbook for a motor vehicle and a cheque for UGX 66,546,000. The defendant defaulted on payments. The cheque was presented to the bank and bounced. Despite several demands, the defendant failed to pay. The defendant was served, filed a defence but failed to appear at trial. The matter proceeded ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether or not the defendant breached the agreement he entered into with the plaintiff.
  2. What remedies are available to the aggrieved party in the circumstances.

Orders

  • The plaintiff is awarded a sum of UGX 65,546,000.
  • Interest on the decretal sum awarded at 8% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • General damages declined.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Elements of Proof
A party alleging breach of contract must prove on a balance of probabilities that a valid contract existed between the parties and that the other party failed to perform their obligations under the contract without justification. Complete performance by the party claiming breach is a condition precedent to sustaining a claim for breach of contract.
Contract Law — Formation — Requirements under Contracts Act 2010
Under section 10 of the Contracts Act No. 7 of 2010, a contract is an agreement made with the free consent of parties with capacity to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, with the intention to be legally bound. A contract may be oral or written or partly oral and partly written or implied from the conduct of the parties.
Contract Law — Remedies for Breach — Compensation under Contracts Act
Under section 61 of the Contracts Act 2010, where there is a breach of contract, the party who suffers the breach is entitled to receive from the party who breaches the contract compensation for any loss or damage caused, but not for any remote and indirect loss. The compensation aims to place the injured party in the same situation, so far as money can do it, as if the contract had been performed.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Legal and Evidential Burden
The legal burden of proof rests on the plaintiff throughout the trial and does not shift. However, the evidential burden shifts depending on the effectiveness with which the plaintiff discharges the initial burden. Once the plaintiff adduces sufficient evidence to support the claim, the evidential burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the evidence.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Duty of Court
Even when a suit proceeds ex parte due to the defendant's failure to appear, the court is duty bound to examine the evidence presented in line with the pleadings to determine whether the plaintiff has proved the case on a balance of probabilities. The legal and evidential burden remains on the plaintiff.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (2)

  • Raila Amolo Odinga & Another v IEBC & 2 Others (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2017)
  • Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabaco Uganda Limited v Turyahikayo (Civil Suit 14 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 316 (13 October 2023)
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.