Wakilii

Kainamura Patrick v Lt. Ben Kachope and Others (Civil Suit No. 59 of 2017)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 259 · 2022 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit by summary plaint for recovery of money alleged due under a brokerage agreement
Decision
Suit dismissed on grounds of public policy and breach of contract by the plaintiff

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (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 4 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations steady — 4 citing cases on record, 4 in the most recent three data years. 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

A brokerage agreement whereby a party was to receive 10% of a government payment for facilitating recovery of a court award was held void as contrary to public policy because it encouraged corruption in public offices. Additionally, the plaintiff breached the agreement by failing to secure payment by the agreed deadline, and misrepresented himself as a government employee, rendering the contract voidable. The suit was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Suit dismissed on grounds of public policy and breach of contract by the plaintiff

Facts

The plaintiff sued to recover UGX 191,500,000 allegedly due under an agreement dated 13 August 2012. The defendants, acting as authorised representatives of 224 persons in a prior suit (HCCS No. 546 of 2003), agreed to pay the plaintiff 10% of the decretal amount they would receive from the Attorney General, on the undertaking that payment would be secured by 15 September 2012. The agreement stated it would be null and void if payment was not effected by that date. The defendants paid the plaintiff UGX 4,000,000 in part performance, but subsequently refused further payment. They alleged the plaintiff misrepresented himself as a Ministry of Justice official, and that payment was not obtained until 2 November 2012, after the deadline, thereby nullifying the agreement. The defendants testified that their lawyers, M/s Mugenyi & Co. Advocates, pursued the payment.

Issues

  1. Whether there was breach of the agreement by any of the parties.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Suit dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Public Policy — Brokerage Agreements for Recovery of Government Payments
A contract whereby a party agrees to pay a broker a percentage of money to be recovered from government arising out of a civil court award is contrary to public policy, breeds and encourages corruption in public offices, and is therefore void and unenforceable.
Contract Law — Breach — Failure to Perform by Agreed Date — Time of the Essence Clauses
Where parties agree that failure to perform by a specified date will render the contract null and void, and time is of the essence, the failure to perform by that date automatically nullifies the contract without further action by either party.
Contract Law — Misrepresentation — Voidability — Contracts Act 2010 s.16
Under section 16 of the Contracts Act 2010, fraud and misrepresentation vitiate a contract and make it voidable. Where a representee establishes actionable misrepresentation, the representee is entitled to rescission of the contract.
Administrative Law — Public Policy — Corruption — Judicial Role
The court has a public duty to ensure that corruption does not undermine public confidence in the work carried out by public offices such as the Attorney General's chambers and the Ministry of Finance, and will refuse to enforce contracts that are liable to corrupt public administration.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (6)

  • Elizabeth Kobusingye v Annet Zimbiha (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2019)
  • Shell (U) Ltd and 9 Others v Muwema and Mugerwa Advocates (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2013)
  • Access Financial Services PLC Ltd v Khayongo Patricia (High Court Civil Suit No. 061 of 2007)
  • United Building Services Ltd v Yafesi Muzira t/a Quickest Builders & Co. (High Court Civil Suit No. 154 of 2005)
  • Dada Cycles Ltd v Sofitra S.P.R.L. Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 656 of 2005)
  • Luzinda v Ssekamatte and 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 366 of 2017)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

Kainamura Patrick v Lt. Ben Kachope and Others (Civil Suit No. 59 of 2017) [2022] UGHCCD 259 (14 December 2022)
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.