Wakilii

Kiggundu v Muruli Muyambi (Civil Suit 698 of 2016)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 287 · 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 recovery of monetary compensation
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with monetary award and costs

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 suit was not time barred because the defendant's 2009 written acknowledgement of liability and promise to compensate the plaintiff within two years caused time to run afresh under s.22(4) of the Limitation Act. The suit filed in November 2016 was within the six-year limitation period from June 2011. The court found two valid agreements between the parties: a 1991 agreement where the defendant used the plaintiff's land title as security for a loan and a 2009 agreement where the defendant acknowledged his default and promised to purchase replacement land and build a house for the plaintiff.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with monetary award and costs

Facts

In 1991, the plaintiff Joseph Kiggundu gave his land certificate of title (Busiro Block 401-402 Plot 162 at Namulanda) to the defendant John Muruli Muyambi to use as security for a loan from Uganda Commercial Bank. The parties entered a written agreement dated 27 December 1991 requiring the defendant to return the title by that date, pay the plaintiff 10% of the borrowed amount (UGX 5,000,000), service the loan, and pay 10% interest for any delay. The defendant defaulted on the loan. By 1999, the bank through the Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust had sold the plaintiff's land to a third party. On 15 June 2009, the defendant entered a second written agreement acknowledging his liability and promising to purchase equivalent replacement land within 5 kilometres of Namulanda and construct a house for the plaintiff within two years. The defendant failed to perform this obligation. The plaintiff filed suit in November 2016 seeking UGX 300,000,000, general damages for breach of contract, and costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff has a valid claim against the Defendant.
  2. Whether the Defendant ever made any agreement with the Plaintiff acknowledging any obligation towards the Plaintiff.
  3. Whether the agreement or contracts between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are valid.
  4. Whether the suit is time barred under the Limitation Act.
  5. What are the remedies available to the Parties?

Orders

  • The Defendant be and is hereby ordered to pay the Plaintiff 10% per annum of the loan amount from the date of default on the 1st January 1992 until the date of judgement.
  • The Defendant be and is hereby ordered to pay UGX 150,000,000 as General Damages.
  • The Defendant pays costs of this suit.
  • The preliminary objection is overruled.

Rules and key headnotes

Limitation of Actions — Effect of Written Acknowledgement on Time Bar — Limitation Act s.22(4)
Where a right of action has accrued to recover a debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim and the person liable acknowledges the claim in writing, the right shall be deemed to have accrued on and not before the date of the acknowledgement, thereby causing time to run afresh for limitation purposes.
Formation of Contract — Valid Agreement — Essential Elements under Contracts Act 2010 s.10
A contract is an agreement made with the free consent of parties with capacity to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, with the intention to be legally bound. A written agreement between parties setting out mutual obligations and signed by both parties constitutes a valid contract.
Limitation of Actions — Actions Founded on Contract — Six-Year Period under Limitation Act s.3(1)
Actions founded on contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action arose. Where a defendant commits to perform within a specified period, the cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the end of that period.
Special Damages — Requirement of Strict Proof — Particularity and Evidence
Special damages must be pleaded with distinct particularity and strictly proved. A court is not entitled to make an award for special damages based on conjecture or on some fluid and speculative estimate of loss sustained by a plaintiff. The court must act strictly on the hard facts presented and accepted as establishing the amount claimed.
General Damages — Restitutio in Integrum — Discretion of Court
General damages are awarded in the discretion of court to compensate the aggrieved fairly for the inconvenience accrued as a result of the defendant's actions. The purpose is to restore the aggrieved party as nearly as possible to the position he or she would have been in had the injury complained of not occurred.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (8)

  • Con-corp International Uganda Ltd v Muslim Supreme Council (High Court Civil Suit No. 318 of 2002)
  • Greenland Bank (in Liquidation) v Dr Apuuli Kihumuro & Anor (High Court Civil Suit No. 790 of 2003)
  • Dr Maj (Rtd) Okullo Anthony Jallon v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 383 of 2012)
  • Dharamshi v Karsan (1974) 1 EA 41
  • Union Bank of Nigeria PLC -v- Alhaji Adams Ayabule & another (2011) JELR 48225 (SC) (SC 221/2005 (16/2/2011))
  • Kenya Women Microfinance Ltd -v-Martha Wangari Kamau, CA No. 14 of 2020
  • Luzinda v Ssekamatte & 3 Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 366 of 2017)
  • Kwizera Eddie v AG (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiggundu v Muruli Muyambi (Civil Suit 698 of 2016) [2023] UGHCCD 287 (4 October 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.