Wakilii

Kakumba v Kobil (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 98 of 2010)

High Court · [2013] UGCOMMC 215 · 2013 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 regarding construction work at a fuel service station
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with damages and interest awarded; defendant's counterclaim 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

Held that the plaintiff was entitled to payment for construction work executed on the defendant's fuel service station as determined by the expert quantity surveyor appointed by consent order. The expert's report found the value of works at UGX 61,732,500. The court awarded general damages of UGX 10,000,000 for the three-year deprivation of payment. The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed for lack of evidence. Interest at court rate was awarded from the date of filing until full payment.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with damages and interest awarded; defendant's counterclaim dismissed

Facts

The defendant sought to develop a fuel service station and engaged the plaintiff who had land to lease. The parties entered into a sublease agreement under which the defendant was to construct a service station on the plaintiff's land. The sublease provided that construction would commence on 15 September 2005. The service station was constructed. The plaintiff claimed payment for extra work totalling UGX 64,232,500, which the defendant refused. The defendant counterclaimed for a refund, alleging that new drawings downscaled construction costs. By consent order dated 28 February 2013, the parties appointed an expert quantity surveyor, Samuel E. Bayo, to determine the value of works executed. The consent order provided that the expert's report would be binding on the parties, with each party to pay UGX 2,500,000 towards the expert's fee. The expert circulated a draft report for comments within 60 days, but neither party commented. The expert filed his final report on 27 August 2013, valuing the works at UGX 61,732,500. The plaintiff had been deprived of payment for over three years from March 2010.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to payment for extra work executed on the defendant's fuel service station.
  2. Whether general damages should be awarded for breach of contract.
  3. Whether interest should be awarded and at what rate.
  4. Whether the defendant's counterclaim for refund should succeed.

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff.
  • Special damages awarded: UGX 61,732,500.
  • General damages awarded: UGX 10,000,000.
  • Interest on special damages at court rate from date of filing until full payment.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Damages — Compensatory Principle
Damages for breach of contract are compensatory and their main function is to place the plaintiff in as good a position, to the extent that money can do, as if the breach complained of had not occurred, while avoiding unnecessarily enriching the plaintiff but not denying appropriate compensation.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Remoteness of Damage — Foreseeability Test
Loss must be the direct, natural, or probable consequence of the breach complained of, and the court must determine whether the act of the defendant was proximate enough to foresee a loss by such breach.
Civil Procedure — Consent Orders — Expert Determination — Binding Effect
Where parties by consent order appoint an expert to determine the value of works and agree that the expert's report shall be binding, the court will enforce that agreement where the consent order was reached in good faith and all its provisions were followed.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Discretionary Nature — Compensatory Basis
An award of interest is discretionary and the basis of such an award is that the defendant has kept the plaintiff out of his money and has had the use of it himself, so he ought to compensate the plaintiff accordingly, but where general damages already fully compensate the plaintiff, a high rate of interest may occasion injustice.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Counterclaim — Failure to Adduce Evidence
A defendant pursuing a counterclaim bears the burden of adducing evidence to prove the claim; where no evidence is adduced, the counterclaim must be dismissed.

Cases cited (6)

  • Hall Brothers SS Co. Ltd v Young [1939] 1 KB 748
  • Storms v Hutchinson [1905] AC 575
  • Bank of Uganda v Masaba & Others [1999] 1 EA 2
  • Hadley v Baxendale [1843-60] All ER 46
  • Bhadeba Habib Ltd v Commissioner General URA [1997-2005] 1 KL 202
  • Harbults Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank & Pump Co. Ltd [1970] 1 Ch D 447

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kakumba v Kobil (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 98 of 2010) [2013] UGCommC 215 (19 December 2013)
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.