Wakilii

Kighotha Benson v Amos Dunstan Sengendo and Another (Civil Suit No. 48 of 2022)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 33 · 2026 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 unpaid commission
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with orders for payment of outstanding commission, general damages, interest, 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 plaint disclosed a cause of action against the 2nd Defendant acting as agent for the 1st Defendant. The court found that the Defendants breached the contract by failing to pay the outstanding commission balance of UGX 886,000,000 after the Plaintiff successfully recovered properties and performed his contractual obligations. The 1st Defendant frustrated completion of the contract by lodging caveats on the recovered properties. The Plaintiff was entitled to the unpaid commission, general damages for economic inconvenience and delayed payment, interest at 6% per annum from judgment, and costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with orders for payment of outstanding commission, general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

On 17 March 2020, the Plaintiff contracted with the 1st Defendant (through the 2nd Defendant as agent) to provide services for recovering properties forming the 1st Defendant's share in his deceased father's estate. The Plaintiff was entitled to 30% commission on the value of each recovered property. The Plaintiff successfully recovered land titles for four plots, engaged lawyers, and transferred one title into the 1st Defendant's name. The total value of recovered properties was UGX 4,120,000,000, entitling the Plaintiff to UGX 1,236,000,000 as commission. The Plaintiff was unable to complete transfer of the remaining titles because the 1st Defendant lodged caveats on the properties through another agent, Kimera Nelson Ssemulagwa. The Defendants paid only UGX 350,000,000, leaving an outstanding balance of UGX 886,000,000. The 1st Defendant did not file a defence. The 2nd Defendant filed a defence but did not appear at hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint discloses any cause of action against the 2nd Defendant.
  2. Whether the Defendants breached the contract with the Plaintiff dated 17th March 2020.
  3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Declaration that the 1st Defendant through the agency of the 2nd Defendant breached the contract.
  • The 1st Defendant, directly or through his agent the 2nd Defendant, shall pay to the Plaintiff UGX 886,000,000 being the balance due as part of the 30% commission on UGX 4,120,000,000.
  • General damages of UGX 60,000,000 awarded to the Plaintiff.
  • Interest on the commission and general damages at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Test for Disclosure
A plaint discloses a cause of action where it establishes that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, that right has been violated, and the defendant is liable for the violation. In determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, the court must look at the plaint and its annexures only, assuming all express or implied allegations of fact are true.
Contract Law — Agency — Liability of Agent for Principal's Breach
Where an agent acts on behalf of a disclosed principal at all material times in the formation and performance of a contract, a cause of action lies against the agent for breach of that contract by the principal.
Contract Law — Breach — Failure to Pay Contractual Sum
A breach of contract occurs where one party fails to fulfil obligations imposed by the terms of the contract. Failure to pay an agreed contractual sum after the other party has performed constitutes breach of contract.
Contract Law — Frustration by Party — Effect on Performance
Where a party to a contract frustrates the other party's ability to complete performance by lodging caveats on properties that were to be transferred under the contract, that party cannot claim that the other party failed to perform and remains liable for payment under the contract for work completed.
Civil Procedure — Defence — Failure to File — Effect
Failure to file a defence raises a presumption that the plaintiff's story must be accepted as truth or constitutes a constructive admission of the claims made in the plaint. However, the burden of proof remains with the plaintiff to prove the case on a balance of probabilities even where the case is heard on formal proof.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment in Contract Cases
In assessing general damages for breach of contract, courts are guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience that a party has been put through, and the nature and extent of breach or injury suffered. General damages are implied in every breach of contract and include compensation for eroded value of money due to delayed payment.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (7)

  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] 1 EA 514
  • Green Boat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (Civil Suit No. 580 of 2003)
  • Nakana Trading Co Ltd v Coffee Marketing Board (Civil Suit No. 137 of 1991)
  • United Building Services Ltd v Yafesi Muzira T/A Quickest Builders and Co (HCCS No. 154 of 2005)
  • Ewadra Emmanuel v Spencon Services Ltd (HCCS No. 2 of 2015)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2000] 1 EA 305
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co Ltd (1981) HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kighotha Benson v Amos Dunstan Sengendo and Another (Civil Suit No. 48 of 2022) [2026] UGHCCD 33 (10 February 2026)
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.