Wakilii

Kayima t a Engiplan Consultants v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 86 of 2008)

High Court · [2013] UGCOMMC 86 · 2013 Judgment for Plaintiff (Partial) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of special damages, general damages, interest and costs arising from alleged breach of consultancy services contract
Decision
Plaintiff awarded special damages for unpaid consultancy fees and nominal damages; claim for breach of contract dismissed as time-barred

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 a valid contract existed under common law principles where the PPDA Act could not apply retrospectively to contracts concluded before its commencement in 2003. The claim for breach of contract was time-barred under section 3(2) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation Act, as the cause of action arose in 2004 when construction work failed to commence. However, the claim for outstanding payment was brought in time. The defendant breached the contract by failing to pay the balance on Fee Note No. 2 totalling UGX 33,000,000.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded special damages for unpaid consultancy fees and nominal damages; claim for breach of contract dismissed as time-barred

Facts

The plaintiff, a consulting engineer, submitted proposals in January 2002 for construction supervision of 15 dams and valley tanks under the Livestock Services Project. After winning the tender, negotiations were held in August 2002 and the contract was offered and accepted. The plaintiff commenced work and completed the first phase, for which he was paid in full (UGX 33,520,500). He then submitted Fee Note No. 2 for UGX 83,801,250 after completing the design review stage, but received only partial payment of UGX 50,801,250, with a balance of UGX 33,000,000 held pending improvements to the design review report. In September 2003, the parties agreed to phase implementation: Part A of Contract 1 was to be executed immediately (December 2003-March 2004), while Part B and Contract 2 were scheduled for 2004/5. Construction never commenced. The plaintiff submitted Fee Note No. 3 in February 2004 for the outstanding balance, which remained unpaid. After limited correspondence in 2005 and 2006, the plaintiff filed suit in April 2008 claiming UGX 250,883,250 as special damages representing unpaid fees and lost profits.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit is time barred.
  2. Whether there was a valid contract entered into between the parties.
  3. If there was a contract, whether or not there was a breach of contract by the defendant.
  4. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to the damages claimed.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff for special damages of UGX 33,000,000.
  • Nominal damages of UGX 5,000,000 awarded.
  • Interest awarded on special damages at 22% per annum from 22 November 2006 till payment in full.
  • Interest awarded on nominal damages at 8% per annum from date of judgment till payment in full.
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Limitation — Retrospective Application of Statutes — Public Procurement Act
The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, which came into force on 21 February 2003, does not apply retrospectively to contracts concluded and partly implemented before that date; such contracts remain governed by common law principles under section 2 of the Contracts Act.
Contract Law — Formation — Essential Elements — Offer and Acceptance
Where there has been an offer to enter into legal relations on definite terms and the offer was accepted, a contract is formed regardless of whether it was formally documented, and acceptance may be inferred from words, documents or conduct of the parties.
Contract Law — Variation — Effect of Implementation Schedule Agreement
An implementation schedule agreed upon at a meeting between contracting parties, which phases out project implementation and sets new completion dates, amounts to a variation of the original agreement where the original terms and conditions did not provide for such phasing.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Cause of Action — Breach of Contract
Under section 3(2) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, no action founded on contract may be brought against government after three years from when the cause of action arose; the cause of action for breach of contract arises when the breach occurs, not when the plaintiff is verbally informed of the breach or when subsequent correspondence takes place.
Contract Law — Breach — Accrual of Cause of Action — Failure to Commence Performance
Where parties agree to a specific implementation schedule for a construction project, the cause of action for breach of contract arises when construction work fails to commence by the agreed completion date, even if the parties continue limited correspondence on other matters; failure to protest delays formally does not extend the limitation period.
Contract Law — Damages — Expected Profit — Time-Barred Breach Claims
A claim for expected profit arising from full performance of a contract cannot be sustained where the underlying claim for breach of contract is time-barred; the right to claim lost profit is lost together with the time-barred breach claim.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (5)

  • Ayigihugu Dushabe Julius Ceaser v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 11 of 2012)
  • J.K Patel v Spear Motors Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1999)
  • Shell (U) Ltd v Mukiibi (Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2004)
  • Kituni Construction Company Ltd v Julius Okeny (High Court Civil Suit No. 250 of 2004)
  • Dada Cycles Ltd v Softra SP.R.L Ltd (Civil Suit No. 656 of 2005)

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.

Kayima t a Engiplan Consultants v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 86 of 2008) [2013] UGCommC 86 (10 May 2013)
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.