Kayemba v Kalagala (Civil Suit 287 of 2021)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance and recovery of the purchase price balance. Although the defendant failed to pay the outstanding balance under a land sale agreement, her repeated suits to recover her deposit effectively discharged the contract. The plaintiff, who remained in possession of the property, should have sued for damages arising from breach rather than seeking specific performance and the purchase price. The court also set aside an interlocutory judgment that had been entered in error under the wrong procedural rule.

Outcome

Suit dismissed; plaintiff's claims for specific performance and recovery of purchase price denied

Facts

On 22 December 2015, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a sale agreement for a house and plot at Gayaza B Kasangati at UGX 85,000,000. The defendant paid a deposit of UGX 5,000,000 (the judgment records both UGX 4,000,000 and UGX 5,000,000 at different points; the court adopted UGX 5,000,000). The balance of UGX 80,000,000 was to be paid within three months from 1 January 2016. The defendant paid only UGX 1,000,000 more, leaving UGX 80,000,000 outstanding. Instead of paying the balance, the defendant instituted proceedings in the Chief Magistrate's Court of Kasangati (Land Civil Suit No. 28 of 2019) seeking recovery of her deposit. That suit was dismissed for want of prosecution. The defendant then instituted Small Claim No. 10 of 2021 in the same court, again seeking recovery of the deposit. Throughout, the plaintiff remained in possession of the property. The plaintiff brought this suit seeking specific performance and recovery of the purchase price balance.

Issues

1. Whether the defendant breached the contract of sale of a house and plot of land made on 22/12/2015.
2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

• Interlocutory judgment entered by the Registrar on 27 August 2021 set aside.
• Suit dismissed.
• No order as to costs since the defendant never entered appearance.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 10
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 11
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 8
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 11 Rule 2

Cases cited (3)

• Dembe Trading Enterprises Limited v Uganda Confidential Ltd & Another (HCCS No. 0612 of 2006)
• Dada Cycles Ltd v Sofitra S.P.R.L Ltd (HCCS No. 656 of 2005)
• Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 542 of 2006)

Cases citing this judgment (5)

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.

• Mbarara City Council v Bemanyisa Adonijah (Civil Miscellaneous Application 516 of 2023)
• Namutebi v Lukyamuzi (Divorce Cause 202 of 2022)
• Aporo v Mercy Corps Uganda (Labour Dispute Reference 14 of 2021)
• Kasiwukira and Another v Nabaggala and 5 Others (Civil Suit 462 of 2016)
• Sebuyira v Nakitende (Civil Appeal 24 of 2020)

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