Wakilii

Kabali Dick v Chris Mubiru Kisingiri and Another (Civil Suit No. 178 of 2020)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 318 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff (Partial) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for refund of purchase price following alleged breach of land sale agreement
Decision
Suit partially succeeded with refund of UGX 53,000,000 ordered at 10% interest; general damages denied

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 plaintiff proved payment of only UGX 53,000,000 of the UGX 90,000,000 purchase price for land comprised in Kyadondo Block 264 Plot 3 at Mutundwe. The court ordered a refund of UGX 53,000,000 at 10% interest from judgment date. The plaintiff failed to prove full payment and therefore could not establish breach of contract by the defendants for non-transfer of title. General damages were denied.

Outcome

Suit partially succeeded with refund of UGX 53,000,000 ordered at 10% interest; general damages denied

Facts

The plaintiff entered into a land sale agreement with the defendants on 29 December 2009 for the purchase of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 264 Plot 3 at Mutundwe for UGX 90,000,000. The plaintiff paid UGX 19,000,000 at execution, UGX 21,000,000 on 25 January 2010, and UGX 13,000,000 on 26 February 2010. The plaintiff claimed to have paid the balance of UGX 37,000,000 (totaling UGX 90,000,000) and sought a refund after encountering third parties who claimed the defendants had sold the same land to them. The defendants contended they received only UGX 32,000,000 and that a balance of UGX 58,000,000 remained unpaid. The defendants did not present any witness at trial despite filing a defence.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a breach of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • The plaintiff is entitled to a refund of UGX 53,000,000 (Fifty-Three Million Ugandan Shillings) at an interest rate of 10% from the date of this judgment until payment in full against the defendants jointly.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff against the defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Plaintiff's Duty to Prove Case Regardless of Defendant's Failure to Adduce Evidence
The failure of a defendant to present evidence in court does not discharge the plaintiff of the burden to prove his case. Courts must evaluate the evidence adduced by the plaintiff to ensure that he has proved his case on the balance of probabilities, with or without evidence from the defendant.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Obligation to Perform Contractual Terms
A breach of contract occurs where a party fails to carry out a term of the contract or neglects, refuses, or fails to perform any part of its bargain without a legitimate legal excuse. Parties are bound by the terms of the contract they execute.
Contract Law — Land Sale Agreements — Vendor's Obligation to Transfer Title Upon Full Payment
Under a land sale agreement, the vendor's obligation to transfer title and deliver vacant possession arises only upon full payment of the purchase price by the purchaser. Where the purchaser fails to prove full payment, the vendor cannot be held in breach for non-transfer of title.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Acknowledgment of Receipt of Payment
A document constitutes proof of payment only where it is an acknowledgment of receipt signed by the payee. A breakdown of payments or payment plan that is not countersigned by the payee does not constitute proof of payment.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Amanya v Mayanja Samuel (High Court Civil Suit No. 579 of 2019)
  • Tucker Mubiru v Attorney General (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 084 of 2013)
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 13 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabali_Dick_v_Chris_Mubiru_Kisingiri_and_Another_(Civil_Suit_No._178_of_2020)_[2025]_UGHCLD_318_(6_October_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.