Wakilii

Kihika David v Daj Communication Limited (Civil Suit No. 0009 of 2011)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 259 · 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 losses
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff; defendant ordered to pay unpaid commission, general damages, interest, and costs; 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

The High Court held that the defendant owed the plaintiff unpaid commission of UGX 21,100,000 after finding that irregular deductions had been made from the plaintiff's commission based on alleged losses from underselling SIM cards. The court found that the defendant had no set price for SIM card sales, that verbal instructions were given to sell at UGX 800, and that the defendant's poor management contributed to any losses incurred. The court applied the doctrine of estoppel, finding that the defendant was aware of the sales price over three months and could not later deny authorising it. The counterclaim for UGX 75,900,000 was dismissed.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff; defendant ordered to pay unpaid commission, general damages, interest, and costs; counterclaim dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a sales executive on 28 May 2007, to be remunerated by commission on SIM pack sales. In July 2010, the plaintiff received 31,000 SIM packs from the defendant and sold them at UGX 800 per pack, earning commission of UGX 34,100,000. The defendant paid only UGX 13,000,000, leaving an outstanding balance of UGX 21,100,000. The plaintiff testified that the defendant's managing director verbally instructed him to sell at UGX 800. The defendant contended that SIM packs should have been sold at UGX 3,000 and that the plaintiff's sale at UGX 800 caused a loss of UGX 75,900,000. The defendant issued stock to the plaintiff for three months without objection and made irregular deductions from the plaintiff's commission. An audit report was prepared and a warning letter issued to the plaintiff in September 2010. The defendant counterclaimed for recovery of the alleged loss.

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

Rules and key headnotes

Employment & Labour — Commission Sales — Unilateral Deductions — Employer's Right to Deduct Alleged Losses
An employer may not unilaterally make irregular deductions from an employee's commission for alleged losses without transparent justification, proper notification, and evidence of the employee's sole responsibility for those losses.
Evidence — Estoppel — Conduct Creating Belief — Employer Estopped from Denying Authorised Price
Where an employer issues stock to an employee over a period of three months at a particular sale price, receives returns and continues to issue further stock without objection, the employer is estopped under Evidence Act s.114 from later denying that it authorised that sale price.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Absence of Clear Terms — Proof of Breach
Where an employer alleges breach of contract by an employee for selling goods below a set price, the employer must prove on a balance of probabilities that a clear price term existed and was communicated to the employee; failure to produce such evidence defeats the breach claim.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Contributory Factors — Employer's Poor Management
Where an employer's poor management and failure to supervise or communicate clear pricing terms contribute to a financial loss, the burden of that loss cannot be placed solely on the employee, and the employer's counterclaim for the full amount of the loss will fail.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Namyalo 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 259 (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.