Wakilii

Kamugira v National Housing & Construction Company (Civil Suit No. 127 of 2008)

High Court · [2014] UGHCLD 28 · 2014 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 arising from delay in handing over certificate of title
Decision
Plaintiff awarded general damages; special damages and mesne profits refused

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 2 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.

Good law Followed in 2 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations fading — 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

The defendant breached a specific term of the sale agreement by failing to hand over the certificate of title to the plaintiff within a reasonable time. The claim for special damages failed for lack of strict proof—valuation reports and debit notes attached to pleadings without supporting testimony do not constitute evidence. Mesne profits were refused because the plaintiff, not the defendant, was in possession throughout. General damages of UGX 115,000,000 were awarded for the 23-year delay.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded general damages; special damages and mesne profits refused

Facts

In 1987, the plaintiff purchased a house from the defendant company for UGX 1,700,000, which he fully paid on 14 December 1987. He took vacant possession on 25 April 1988. The defendant promised to hand over the certificate of title, which was still being processed. The plaintiff was unable to renovate the property to a rentable standard because the planning authority required the title as a precondition for development permission. The defendant eventually registered the property in the plaintiff's name on 12 May 2010 and handed over the title on 1 June 2010—a delay of approximately 23 years. The plaintiff claimed that this delay prevented him from renovating and renting out the property, resulting in financial loss.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff's cause of action is barred by limitation.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages.
  3. Who is entitled to costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim for special damages is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff's claim for mesne profits is dismissed.
  • General damages of UGX 115,000,000 (one hundred and fifteen million shillings only) are awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Special Damages — Burden of Proof — Documents Attached to Pleadings
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Attaching a valuation report or debit note to pleadings amounts to specific pleading but does not constitute strict proof. Where the author of such a document is not called to give evidence and be cross-examined, the document remains part of the pleadings and does not amount to evidence.
Evidence — Distinction Between Pleadings and Evidence
Pleadings and attachments thereto are not evidence and do not serve the purpose of evidence unless conceded by the opposite party and admitted as exhibits by the court. Pleadings are written statements of material facts on which a party relies; their purpose is to give notice of the case to be met, not to prove the claim or defence.
Evidence — Agreed Documents at Scheduling Conference — Valuation Report Admitted for Challenge
Where a document is admitted at scheduling conference not as an agreed document but solely for the purpose of allowing the opposite party to challenge its veracity, and no evidence in chief is subsequently adduced on the document, the document does not form part of the evidence on record and cannot be evaluated as such.
Contract Law — Remoteness of Damage — Contemplation of the Parties
A defendant cannot be held liable for losses arising from a purpose not in the contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting. Where a sale agreement does not expressly or implicitly include a term that the property would be put up for rental, the vendor's delay in handing over title does not give rise to liability for lost rental income.
Land & Property — Mesne Profits — Wrongful Possession as Precondition
Mesne profits accrue only where the defendant is in wrongful possession of the property and derives profits from it. Where the plaintiff has been in continuous possession since taking vacant possession, mesne profits cannot be awarded against a defendant who has never been in possession.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Discretion of Court
The award of general damages is in the discretion of the court and compensates for damage, loss, or injury that is the natural consequence of the defendant's act or omission. Where a plaintiff does not lead evidence as to quantum, the court may apply its discretion to award an appropriate sum based on the value of the subject matter, economic inconvenience, and the nature and extent of the breach.
Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Limitation Period Determined as Preliminary Point
Where a matter has been conclusively determined by the court as a preliminary point of law, the issue is res judicata and the parties are precluded from subsequently litigating the same issue in the same matter once again.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (23)

  • Kamunye v Pioneer Assurance Ltd [1977] EA 263
  • Strom Brucks Aktie Blog v Hutchinson (1905) AC 525
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Dr Godwin Turyasingura v Wheels of Africa (High Court Civil Suit No. 485 of 1995)
  • Musoke David v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board [1990-1994] EA 219
  • Annet Zimbiha v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 109 of [year unknown])
  • Administrator General v Bwanika James and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2003)
  • Reiding v Skyline Advertising (U) Ltd [1971] HCB 166
  • Bisuti v Busoga DA [1971] ULR 179
  • GAPCO (U) Ltd v AS Transporters Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2007)
  • Kampala City Council v Nakaye (1972) EA 446
  • Hororanto Busulwa Ssalongo v Abdu Senabulya and 5 Others (High Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2002)
  • George Kasedde Mukasa v Emmanuel Wambedde and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 459 of 1998)
  • Paul Kalule v Losira Nonozi [1974] HCB 202
  • Elliott v Boynton [1924] 1 Ch 236 (CA)
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 13 of 1993)
  • Robert Cuossens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Charles Acire v Myaana Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Ongom v Attorney General [1979] HCB 267
  • Bhadelie Habib Ltd v Commissioner General URA [1997-2001] UCL 2001
  • Jennifer Behange and Others v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1999)

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.

Kamugira v National Housing & Construction Company (Civil Suit No. 127 of 2008) [2014] UGHCLD 28 (22 August 2014)
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.