Wakilii

Kafeero Mugerwa v Devraf Parbatbhai Vekariya (Civil Suit 95 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 28 · 2024 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 seeking specific performance and damages
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with specific performance ordered and damages awarded

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

Court held that the defendant breached the land sale agreement by failing to pay the outstanding balance after taking possession of the land. Specific performance was ordered requiring the defendant to pay UGX 116,000,000 being the balance due for 72 acres at the agreed rate. General damages of UGX 50,000,000 were awarded for four years of non-payment. The plaintiff's disclosure of the actual acreage (72 acres not 100 acres) and request to adjust the agreement did not constitute breach. The defendant's counterclaim for breach and compensation was dismissed.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with specific performance ordered and damages awarded

Facts

The plaintiff sold land comprised in Singo Block 792 Plot 3 measuring 100 acres to the defendant for UGX 300,000,000 under an agreement dated 8 August 2018. The defendant paid UGX 100,000,000 on execution with the balance payable in four monthly instalments of UGX 50,000,000 each. The defendant took possession and developed the land. It was later discovered that the land measured only 72 acres not 100 acres, reducing the total price to UGX 216,000,000 and the balance to UGX 116,000,000. The plaintiff proposed to vary the agreement to reflect the actual acreage but the defendant did not respond. The defendant refused to pay the balance claiming the plaintiff failed to provide title for the full 100 acres. The defendant counterclaimed for breach, refund of purchase price, and compensation for developments.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant or plaintiff breached the agreement.
  2. What are the remedies available.

Orders

  • The defendant breached the contract in this case.
  • The counterclaim is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is entitled to specific performance.
  • The defendant is decreed to pay UGX 116,000,000 being the amount owing.
  • The defendant is decreed to pay general damages of UGX 50,000,000.
  • The amounts in orders 4 and 5 shall attract interest of 20% per annum from 24 January 2024 until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Failure to Pay Purchase Price
A purchaser who takes possession of land and develops it but fails to pay the outstanding balance of the purchase price is in breach of the contract of sale, notwithstanding that the actual acreage is less than originally stated in the agreement.
Contract Law — Disclosure of Deficiency — Not Breach
A vendor's revelation that the land sold is less than stated in the agreement, accompanied by a request to adjust the agreement to reflect the actual acreage, does not constitute breach of contract but is an act of genuine disclosure. Both parties are equally responsible for failing to ascertain the actual acreage at the time of signing.
Contract Law — Specific Performance — Equitable Remedy
Specific performance is an equitable remedy decreed at the discretion of court and will be ordered where a common law remedy such as damages would not be adequate. Where a purchaser is in occupation of land, it is equitable to order the purchaser to complete the contract by paying the outstanding balance.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment Principles for Breach of Contract
The measure of general damages for breach of a contract for payment of money is calculated by taking into consideration the interest which the money would have attracted during the period of breach, taking the rates of interest and inflation into account. Twenty percent per annum may be applied as the measure of profit which money would have attracted during the period of breach.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (8)

  • Dada Cycles Ltd v Sofitra SPRL Ltd (HCCS No. 656 of 2005)
  • Kyarimpa Sarah v Harriet Nassozi Heweet (Civil Suit No. 0794 of 2016)
  • Hailing Manzoor v Serwan Singh Baram (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2001)
  • Fulgisio Semakovs Edirisa Ssebugwawo [1979] HCB 15
  • Dharamshi v Karsan [1974] EA 41
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2001] 1 EA 305
  • Sowah v Bank for Housing & Construction [1982-83] 2 GLR 1234
  • Waiglobe (U) Ltd v SAI Beverages Ltd (Civil Suit No. 016 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kafeero Mugerwa v Devraf Parbatbhai Vekariya (Civil Suit 95 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 28 (24 January 2024)
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.