Wakilii

Kato v Kimbowa and Another (Civil Suit 155 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 132 · 2023 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 and rescission of sale agreement
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff; first defendant ordered to vacate the property and pay general damages; plaintiff ordered to refund the deposit to the first defendant; counterclaim dismissed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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

Held that the first defendant breached the sale agreement dated 1st July 2018 by failing to pay the balance of UGX 56,000,000 by the stipulated deadline of 31st December 2018 and refusing to vacate the property. The court ordered rescission of the agreement, vacant possession to the plaintiff, general damages of UGX 30,000,000, and a refund of the deposit of UGX 24,000,000 to the first defendant. The second defendant was not held liable as she was not a party to the contract.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff; first defendant ordered to vacate the property and pay general damages; plaintiff ordered to refund the deposit to the first defendant; counterclaim dismissed

Facts

In April 2018, the plaintiff sold a house on Kabaka's land at Wamala, Kyadondo to the defendants for UGX 80,000,000. The defendants paid a deposit of UGX 24,000,000 and took possession. Under the initial agreement, the plaintiff was to occupy the defendants' house as security for the balance. In June 2018, the defendants sold their house and evicted the plaintiff, forcing him to rent elsewhere. The parties then executed a fresh agreement dated 1st July 2018, cancelling the first agreement and requiring the defendants to pay the balance of UGX 56,000,000 by 31st December 2018. The first defendant failed to pay by the deadline, claiming he discovered the land was Kabaka's land and not private mailo land. He demanded a refund of his deposit before vacating. The plaintiff attempted to refund the money in January 2019, but the defendants refused and remained in possession. The plaintiff filed suit in the Chief Magistrate's Court, which ruled in his favour, but the decree was set aside for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff then instituted this suit in the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether there was any breach of the contract dated 1st July 2018 between the parties, and if so, by whom?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • A declaration that the defendants breached the agreement for sale of a house located at Katooke Wamala-Nabweru Division district measuring 40ft by 70ft between the plaintiff and the defendants dated 1st July 2018.
  • An order for rescission of the sale of land/house agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants.
  • An order for vacant possession of the house located at Katooke Wamala-Nabweru Division, Wakiso District with immediate effect.
  • General damages for breach of contract of UGX 30,000,000.
  • Interest at court rate on general damages from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • A refund of UGX 24,000,000 to the first defendant.
  • Costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
  • Counterclaim dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Failure to Perform Within Fixed Time — Time of the Essence
Where parties to a contract treat time as of the essence and a party fails to perform within the stipulated time, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the promisee under section 47 of the Contracts Act 2010.
Contract Law — Rescission — Consequences of Rescission — Restoration of Benefits
Upon rescission of a voidable contract, the party who rescinds must restore any benefit received from the other party under section 53(2) of the Contracts Act 2010.
Contract Law — Interpretation — Respecting Contractual Wishes of Parties
Courts must respect the contractual wishes of the parties and enforce the agreed terms as written, dismissing extraneous additions or excuses not binding on the other party.
Contract Law — Privity of Contract — Liability of Non-Parties
A person who is not a party to a contract cannot be held liable for its breach under the Contracts Act 2010.
Land & Property — Sale of Land — Kabaka's Land — Description in Agreement
Where a sale agreement clearly describes the subject land as Kabaka's land and both parties sign the agreement, a purchaser cannot later claim frustration of contract on the basis that the land is not private mailo land.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Stanbic Bank (Uganda) Limited v Uganda Cros Limited
  • William Kasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 1326 of 2000)
  • Harry Sempa v Kabagambe David (High Court Civil Suit No. 408 of 2014)
  • Future Stars Investment (U) Ltd v Nasuru Yusuf (High Court Civil Suit No. 0012 of 2017)
  • Crane Bank Ltd v Nipun Narottam Bhatia (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2014)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Kato_v_Kimbowa_and_Another_(Civil_Suit_155_of_2020)_[2023]_UGHCLD_132_(19_May_2023)
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.