Wakilii

Kaddu v Maruben Corporation (Civil Suit No. 108 of 1993)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 95 · 1993 Judgment for Plaintiff (Partial) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for payment and breach of contract
Decision
Plaintiff awarded payment on quantum meruit basis for work actually done; claim for full contract value dismissed

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

The court held that the defendant rightfully terminated the subcontracts without notice under an agreed variation to the contract terms, as the plaintiff's performance was unsatisfactory due to inadequate work force. However, the plaintiff was entitled to payment on quantum meruit for work actually performed because the defendant failed to measure the work in accordance with the contractual procedure requiring notice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff could not claim for the full estimated contract value as it did not complete the work.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded payment on quantum meruit basis for work actually done; claim for full contract value dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff, a local limited liability company, subcontracted with the defendant, a Japanese corporation, for two jobs: cable laying (estimated at US$ 58,629.84) and conduit pipe laying (estimated at US$ 28,649.75). The plaintiff agreed to complete the work within a schedule. The defendant was to supply materials. The plaintiff commenced both contracts but did not complete either. The defendant complained of slow progress and inadequate workforce. The plaintiff had approximately 20 labourers instead of the agreed 200. Letters of intent provided that the defendant could terminate without notice if not satisfied with performance. The defendant subsequently entered the sites and completed the work itself. The plaintiff claimed unpaid sums of US$ 55,598.43 for work done. The defendant counterclaimed, asserting the plaintiff breached by abandoning the sites and had been fully paid.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a breach of contract between the parties and if so by which party.
  2. Whether the plaintiff was properly remunerated as per the terms of the contract.
  3. What remedy the innocent party is entitled to for breach.

Orders

  • The defendant to pay the plaintiff according to the plaintiff's measurement of work done in Contract No. 2, being the difference between US$ 17,861 and the amount already paid.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Variation — Waiver of Rights — Right to Notice of Termination
A party may agree to waive its right to notice before termination of contract. Where a letter of intent requests confirmation that one party has the right to terminate without notice or compensation if not satisfied with performance, and the other party confirms this in writing, the latter has agreed to forgo its right to notice before termination.
Contract Law — Breach — Failure to Maintain Adequate Work Force — Time of Essence
In a contract where time is of essence and a party undertakes to deploy a certain minimum number of workers to keep to the schedule of work, failure to deploy sufficient work force resulting in slow progress constitutes unsatisfactory performance and amounts to breach of contract.
Contract Law — Quantum Meruit — Payment for Work Actually Done
Where a contract provides that quantities in bills of quantities are estimated and not actual, and the contractor does not complete the work, the contractor is entitled to payment on quantum meruit basis for the work actually performed.
Contract Law — Measurement of Work — Procedural Fairness — Notice Requirement
Where a contract provides that measurement of work done by a subcontractor requires notice to be sent to the subcontractor who must attend or send a qualified representative, measurement taken without such notice cannot be taken as the correct measurement for payment. Payment must be made according to the plaintiff's measurement where the defendant fails to comply with the contractual measurement procedure.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kaddu v Maruben Corporation (Civil Suit No. 108 of 1993) [1993] UGHC 95 (18 October 1993)
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.