Wakilii

Katushabe v Duhimbaze (Civil Suit 722 of 2020)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 217 · 2024 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 recovery of contract price
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff; Defendant to pay damages and interest; 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

The High Court held that the defendant breached an oral contract for the supply of peas by delivering goods that were unfit for human consumption and did not comply with the agreed description of good quality dry peas. The court found that 94.5% of the consignment was rotten and the defendant had constructive notice that the peas were harvested prematurely and packaged before proper drying. The court awarded the plaintiff special damages of UGX 38,475,500 and general damages of UGX 20,000,000 plus interest, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff; Defendant to pay damages and interest; counterclaim dismissed

Facts

The Plaintiff, a dealer in consumer goods based in Kampala, entered into an oral contract in May 2020 with the Defendant, a grain dealer in Kisoro, to purchase 12,120 kilograms of good quality dry peas at UGX 5,300 per kilogram for a total of UGX 64,236,000. The Plaintiff paid UGX 42,000,000 in advance and the Defendant delivered the peas on 3 July 2020. While the first few bags were satisfactory, the Plaintiff subsequently discovered that 94.5% of the consignment was rotten, shrivelled and unfit for consumption. A KCCA agricultural officer examined the peas and confirmed they were rotten with moulds and discoloured, finding that the peas had been harvested prematurely and packaged before proper drying. The Defendant denied the allegations and claimed the Plaintiff was avoiding payment. The Defendant counterclaimed for the unpaid balance of UGX 22,236,000.

Issues

  1. Whether there was breach of the contract for supply of peas.
  2. Whether there was fraud in the performance of the contract for supply of peas.
  3. What reliefs are available to the parties.

Orders

  • It is declared that the Defendant breached the contract for supply of peas.
  • It is declared that the Defendant acted fraudulently in performing the contract for the supply of peas.
  • The Defendant shall pay special damages of UGX 38,475,500 plus interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from 3 July 2020 until full payment.
  • The Defendant shall pay general damages of UGX 20,000,000 plus interest thereon at the rate of 13% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment.
  • The Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.
  • Costs of the suit and of the counterclaim are awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Sale of Goods — Implied Conditions — Goods Sold by Description
Under Section 14 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 2017, there is an implied condition in every contract of sale of goods that goods sold by description shall comply with that description.
Sale of Goods — Implied Conditions — Fitness for Purpose
Under Section 15 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 2017, there is an implied condition in every contract of sale of goods that goods supplied under a contract of sale shall be reasonably fit for their purpose where the seller sells goods in the course of the seller's business.
Sale of Goods — Right to Examine — Reasonable Opportunity — Latent Defects
While a buyer is deemed to have accepted goods after a reasonable opportunity of examining them under Section 43 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 2017, a buyer retains the right to reject goods if sampling at delivery failed to disclose material and latent defects, particularly where defects in perishable goods only become apparent over time.
Fraud — Constructive Notice — Knowledge Imputed by Law
Constructive notice is the knowledge which courts impute on a person upon a presumption so strong of the existence of the knowledge that it cannot be rebutted, either from his knowing something which ought to have put him on further inquiry or from willfully abstaining from inquiry to avoid actual notice. A seller who packages and delivers goods that are prematurely harvested and not properly dried has constructive notice that those goods will deteriorate.
Burden and Standard of Proof — Fraud in Civil Proceedings
Allegations of fraud, though civil in character, must be specifically pleaded and strictly proven. Fraud must be proved to the satisfaction of the court, the burden being heavier and the standard higher than the mere balance of probabilities ordinarily applied in civil matters.
Damages — Special Damages — Proof Requirements
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved. Where a plaintiff fails to specifically plead and prove amounts claimed for loss of profit or storage costs, those claims must be rejected even if generally referenced in the pleadings.
Damages — Interest — Rates and Rationale
A successful plaintiff is entitled to interest at a rate which would not neglect the prevailing economic value of money but which would also insulate the plaintiff against further economic vagaries, like inflation and depreciation of the currency, in the event that the money ordered to be recovered is not paid promptly when it falls due.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (10)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Mogas Uganda Limited v Benzina Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 88 of 2013)
  • Mwesigye Warren v Kiiza Ben (High Court Civil Suit No. 320 of 2015)
  • Fredrick J.K. Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd & 5 Ors (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2006)
  • Eric Alema v Maybach Motors Ltd & 2 Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 417 of 2011)
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Hajji Yahaya Sekalega t/s Sekalega Enterprises (High Court Civil Suit No. 185 of 2009)
  • Opia Moses v Chukia Lumago Roselyn & 5 Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 22 of 2013)
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 224 of 2011)
  • Kwizera Eddie v Attorney General (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 01 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katushabe v Duhimbaze (Civil Suit 722 of 2020) [2024] UGCommC 217 (28 June 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.