Wakilii

Kihika David v DAJ Communication Limited (CIVIL SUIT NO. 0009 OF 2011)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 257 · 2022 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for unpaid commission and breach of contract with counterclaim for loss occasioned by alleged unauthorised sales
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with special damages of UGX 20,100,000 and general damages of UGX 1,000,000; defendant's 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

Held that the defendant owed the plaintiff unpaid commission of UGX 21,100,000. The court found that the defendant had no fixed pricing policy and that verbal instructions were given to sell sim packs at UGX 800. The doctrine of estoppel applied where the defendant permitted sales at that price for three months without objection. Deductions made by the defendant from the plaintiff's commission were irregular and unjustifiable. The defendant's poor management contributed to any loss incurred. The plaintiff did not breach his contract. Judgment for the plaintiff with special and general damages awarded.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with special damages of UGX 20,100,000 and general damages of UGX 1,000,000; defendant's counterclaim dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a sales executive in May 2007, remunerated by commission on sim pack sales. In July 2010, the plaintiff received 31,000 sim packs which he sold at UGX 800 each, earning commission of UGX 34,100,000. The defendant paid only UGX 13,000,000, leaving UGX 21,100,000 outstanding. The defendant alleged the plaintiff sold the sim packs below the authorised price of UGX 3,000, causing a loss of UGX 75,900,000, and made irregular deductions from the plaintiff's commission. The plaintiff testified that the defendant's managing director verbally instructed him to sell at UGX 800. The defendant issued stock to the plaintiff for three months at this price without objection. An audit later identified the alleged loss, and the defendant issued a warning letter and made deductions from multiple staff members' commissions.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant owes the Plaintiff any money in terms of commission for sim pack sales and connections for the month of July 2010?
  2. Whether the Plaintiff breached the terms of his engagement and whether he is liable to pay for the loss occasioned?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Defendant pays the Plaintiff UGX 20,100,000 as special damages at interest rate of 17% per annum from date of cause of action until payment in full.
  • Defendant pays the Plaintiff UGX 1,000,000 as general damages at interest rate of 17% per annum from date of delivery of judgment until payment in full.
  • The Defendant pays the Plaintiff costs of the suit.
  • Counterclaim dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Estoppel — Conduct Permitting Reliance
Where an employer by conduct permits an employee to sell goods at a particular price for three months without objection, issuing fresh stock throughout that period, the employer is estopped from later denying that the employee had authority to sell at that price.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Proof of Terms
Where an employer alleges breach of contract by an employee for selling goods below a fixed price, the employer must prove on a balance of probabilities that a fixed price was communicated to the employee. Failure to adduce evidence of written or consistent pricing instructions defeats the claim.
Employment & Labour — Commission — Deductions from Commission
An employer may not make irregular and unjustified deductions from an employee's earned commission without transparent accounting and proper notice. Where deductions are made for alleged losses caused by the employee, the employer must prove the quantum of loss and the employee's sole responsibility for it.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Contributory Fault
Where an employer's poor management and failure to supervise contribute to financial loss, the burden of that loss cannot be placed solely on an employee who acted in accordance with verbal instructions and whose conduct was permitted by the employer over an extended period.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Balance of Probabilities
In a civil suit, the party alleging breach of contract bears the burden of proving the existence of the contractual term allegedly breached and the fact of the breach on a balance of probabilities. Failure to discharge this burden results in dismissal of the claim.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Namgalo Josephine v National Curriculum Development Centre (HCT 122 of 2008)
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (SCCA 08 of 1999)
  • Francis Butaqira v Deborah Mukasa (SCCA No. 6 of 1989)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kihika David v DAJ Communication Limited (CIVIL SUIT NO. 0009 OF 2011) [2022] UGHC 257 (20 May 2022)
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.