Wakilii

Katamba v SESACO Limited (Civil Suit 978 of 2019)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 146 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money and breach of contract, with counterclaim for negligence and conversion
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant; counterclaim dismissed with costs to the counter-defendant

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 plaint disclosed a cause of action. Two enforceable contracts existed: a service agreement for board membership and a contract for supply of Defatted Soya Flour. The defendant breached both by failing to pay the plaintiff's honorarium of USD 2,250 and by receiving UGX 100,000,000 for DSF supply without delivering the product or refunding the money. The counterclaim lacked merit as the defendant adduced no evidence. Judgment entered for plaintiff with recovery of UGX 100,000,000, USD 2,250, aggravated damages of UGX 200,000,000, general damages of UGX 50,000,000, and interest.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant; counterclaim dismissed with costs to the counter-defendant

Facts

On 20 March 2018, the defendant appointed the plaintiff to its Board of Directors with an annual honorarium of USD 1,500. The plaintiff was not paid for 18 months. The defendant's Managing Director convinced the plaintiff to purchase Defatted Soya Flour (DSF) for his agribusiness enterprise. The plaintiff paid UGX 100,000,000 in two instalments (4 February 2019 and 13 March 2019) into the defendant's account for DSF supply. Despite receipt of payment, the defendant neither executed a formal contract nor supplied the DSF nor refunded the money, despite repeated reminders. The defendant counterclaimed for negligence and conversion, alleging the plaintiff illegally transacted business within the company. The defendant's witness refused to confirm his witness statement during trial, and the court expunged it under its inherent powers.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action?
  2. Whether there is any contract enforceable at law between the Plaintiff and Defendant, and if so, who breached it?
  3. Whether the Counterclaim has merit?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • A declaration that the Defendant breached the said contracts.
  • An order for recovery of UGX 100,000,000 (Uganda Shillings One Hundred Million only).
  • An order for payment of USD 2,250 (United States Dollars Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty).
  • Aggravated damages of UGX 200,000,000 (Uganda Shillings Two Hundred Million only).
  • General damages of UGX 50,000,000 (Uganda Shillings Fifty Million only).
  • Interest on UGX 100,000,000 at the rate of 20% per annum from 4th February, 2019 until payment in full.
  • Interest on USD 2,250 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the suit till payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit and the counterclaim.
  • The Counterclaim is dismissed with costs to the Counter-Defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Requirement for Plaint to Disclose Cause of Action
A plaint discloses a cause of action where the plaintiff demonstrates that he enjoyed a right, that the right has been violated, and that it is the defendant who is liable for that violation. The plaint together with its annexures must be considered in making this determination.
Contract Law — Essential Elements of Enforceable Contract — Capacity, Intention, Consensus, Consideration, Legality, Certainty
For a contract to be valid and legally enforceable, the following essential elements must exist: capacity to contract, intention to contract, consensus ad idem, valuable consideration, legality of purpose, and sufficient certainty of terms.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Party Alleging Fact Bears Burden
Whoever alleges a given fact and desires the court to give judgment on any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of any fact has the evidential burden to prove that fact, unless it is provided by law that the proof of that fact shall lie on another person. The standard of proof in civil cases is on a balance of probabilities.
Evidence — Estoppel by Conduct — Party Cannot Approbate and Reprobate After Obtaining Benefit
Where one person has by declaration, act or omission intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon that belief, that person is estopped from denying the truth of that thing. A party who has obtained a benefit from a transaction cannot approbate and reprobate.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Occurs Where Duty Arising from Contractual Obligation is Breached
Parties are bound by the terms of contracts they execute. A breach occurs where that which is complained of is a breach of a duty arising out of the obligations undertaken in the contract. Failure to perform contractual obligations amounts to breach.
Damages — General Damages — Award at Discretion of Court to Compensate Loss
General damages are the direct natural or probable consequence of the wrongful act complained of and include damages for pain, suffering, inconvenience and anticipated future loss. An award of general damages is at the discretion of court, which should be exercised judiciously. Factors to consider include the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience the plaintiff may have been put through, and the nature and extent of the injury suffered.
Damages — Aggravated Damages — Enhanced Compensation for Injury, Humiliation, Distress or Embarrassment
Aggravated damages are essentially compensatory in nature although enhanced on account of the injury, humiliation, distress or embarrassment suffered by the plaintiff due to the conduct of the defendant. They may be awarded where the defendant's conduct demonstrates exceptional breach causing significant economic loss and distress.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (25)

  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Narottam Bhatia & Anor v Boutique Shazimi Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2009)
  • Madhvani International S.A v Attorney General (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2004)
  • Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (High Court Civil Suit No. 580 of 2003)
  • Karegyeya Geoffrey v Mugabi Innocent T/A Ssemanda & Sons Est (High Court Civil Suit No. 753 of 2019)
  • Mujuni Jimrex v Haks Investment Ltd & Anor (High Court Civil Suit No. 446 of 2018)
  • Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1993)
  • Car and General Ltd v AFS Construction (U) Ltd [2018] UGCA 34
  • Ken Group of Companies Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd & 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 486 of 2007)
  • Behange Vs School Outfitters(U) Ltd (2000)1 E.A 20
  • Barclays Bank of Uganda Limited v Howard Bakojja (High Court Civil Suit No. 53 of 2011)
  • Nakawa Trading Co. Ltd v Coffee Marketing Board (High Court Civil Suit No. 137 of 1991)
  • United Building Services Limited v Yafesi Muzira T/A Quickset Builders and Co. (High Court Civil Suit No. 154 of 2005)
  • Kyambadde Vs Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
  • Bonham - Carter Vs Hyde Park Hotel [1948] 64 TLR 177
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell (U) Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006)
  • Storms Vs Hutchinson [1905] A.C 515
  • Robert Cuossens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
  • Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendu Edwards (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank Vs Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Basiima Kabonesa v The Attorney General & Anor (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2021)
  • URA v Wanume David Kitamirike (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2010)
  • Crescent Transportation Co Ltd v Bin Technical Services Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2000)
  • Premchandra Shenoi & Anor v Maximov Oleg Petrovich (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003)
  • Uganda Development Bank Vs Muganga Construction Co. Ltd (1981) HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katamba v SESACO Limited (Civil Suit 978 of 2019) [2024] UGCommC 146 (30 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.