Kasujja v Ntulume (Civil Suit No.387 2000)
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 Defendant breached the contract by misrepresenting a panel van as a passenger service vehicle (PSV), refusing to provide the original logbook to enable PSV licensing, and impounding the vehicle in disregard of the second agreement entitling the plaintiff to sell it. The plaintiff proved special damages for the purchase price and repair costs, but failed to prove loss of expected income as special damages must be strictly proved. General damages awarded for loss and inconvenience. Defendant's counterclaim dismissed for want of proof.
Outcome
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and interest; defendant's counterclaim dismissed
Facts
On 9 April 1999, the plaintiff agreed to buy a motor vehicle (M/v Reg. 182 UED Toyota omnibus) from the defendant for Shs. 6.3 million, paying Shs. 4.35 million down payment with the balance due in two months. The defendant handed over the vehicle with a photocopy of the logbook and a KCC registration book indicating it was a passenger service vehicle (PSV). When the plaintiff attempted to operate it as a commuter taxi, it was discovered the vehicle was never licensed as a PSV but registered as a panel van with seating capacity of only two. Unable to use the vehicle as intended and unable to pay the balance, the plaintiff sought the original logbook from the defendant to apply for PSV licensing, but the defendant refused and demanded payment. On 15 June 1999, the parties signed a second agreement: the plaintiff paid an additional Shs. 200,000, received two months to pay the balance of Shs. 1.75 million, failing which interest at 15 percent per week would accrue for two weeks, after which the plaintiff would sell the vehicle to pay the defendant. The plaintiff defaulted and before he could find a buyer, the defendant instructed auctioneers who impounded and sold the vehicle. A search at the Registry of Motor Vehicles revealed the vehicle was a panel van registered to one Sherrali Mohammed, not the defendant.
Issues
- Whether there was breach of contract by either party.
- Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought.
- Whether the Defendant is entitled to the counterclaim.
- What is the quantum of damages.
Orders
- Judgment entered for the plaintiff.
- Defendant to pay Shs. 4,450,000 as money spent on the vehicle.
- Defendant to pay Shs. 1,153,000 as repair charges.
- Defendant to pay Shs. 1,000,000 general damages.
- Interest on items 1, 2, and 3 at 15 percent per annum from date of filing till payment in full.
- Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
- Defendant's counterclaim dismissed with costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (2)
- Senyakazana v Attorney General (1984) HCB
- MAKUMBI -vs- KIGEZI AFRICAN BUS CO LTD (1986) 69
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.