Wakilii

Kimanywenda v Brukam Limited (HCT – 01 – CV – CS – 0021 OF 2015)

High Court · [2016] UGHCCD 106 · 2016 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 heard ex parte after defendant failed to appear
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages 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

Held that the defendant breached the construction contract by failing to pay the agreed contract price after the plaintiff substantially performed his obligations. Where the defendant fails to appear and adduce evidence in defence, the plaintiff's uncontested account must be accepted. The plaintiff was awarded the outstanding contract sum of UGX 309,876,094 with interest at 24% per annum, plus general damages of UGX 50,000,000 with interest, and costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs

Facts

In November 2014, the defendant's managing director engaged the plaintiff to perform construction work for an initial price of UGX 209,091,875, later increased to UGX 247,244,375. The plaintiff was paid UGX 152,600,000, leaving UGX 94,544,375 outstanding. The plaintiff was then asked to do additional work valued at UGX 365,655,155, for which he was paid UGX 58,979,000, leaving UGX 306,676,155 outstanding. The plaintiff completed 98% of the work. The defendant then stopped the plaintiff from working and alleged shoddy workmanship to avoid payment. The defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract due to alleged defective work. The defendant and its counsel failed to appear for hearing. An engineer's report was obtained which assessed the work and made recommendations accounting for defects and unfinished structures.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant breached the contract with the plaintiff.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to payment of outstanding contract sums.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to general damages for breach of contract.

Orders

  • Declaration that the defendant is in breach of contract.
  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff UGX 94,544,375 with interest at 24% per annum from 16 January 2015 until full payment.
  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff UGX 215,331,719 with interest at 24% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment.
  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff general damages of UGX 50,000,000 with interest at 24% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment.
  • Defendant to pay the costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Hearings — Failure of Defendant to Appear
Where the defendant fails to appear when the suit is called for hearing and the court is satisfied that summons or notice was duly served, the court may proceed ex parte under Order 9 Rule 20(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Evidence — Acceptance of Uncontested Account
Where the defence adduces no evidence and the defendant fails to cross-examine the plaintiff on his witness statement, the plaintiff's account of events must be accepted as the defendant is taken to have no contest whatsoever.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Failure to Pay Contract Price
Where a defendant fails to pay the plaintiff fully for work done under an agreed contract, there is a breach of contract.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment in Breach of Contract
General damages in breach of contract are what a court may award when the court cannot point to any precise measure of assessment except the opinion and judgment of a reasonable person. General damages must be prayed for and proved.
Damages & Quantum — Interest on Damages — Distinction Between Commercial and Compensatory Awards
A distinction must be made between awards arising from commercial business transactions, which attract higher interest rates, and awards of general damages, which are mainly compensatory and attract lower interest rates.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Costs Follow the Event
Under Section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, costs follow the event and a successful party should not be deprived of costs except for good cause such as misconduct or matters which led up to the litigation.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (14)

  • Wilson Nuwemugizi v National Water and Sewerage Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1993)
  • Tom Mukalazi versus Davis Kisule (1995) KALR 860
  • Muyingo v Lugemwa and 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 24 of 2013)
  • Tweddle versus Atkinson (1861) 121 ER 762
  • Combe versus Combe (1951) 2KB 215
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 542 of 2006)
  • United Building Services Ltd v Yates Muskrat T/A Quickset Builders & Co (HCCS No. 154 of 2005)
  • Kampala District Land Board & George Mitala v Venansio Babweyana (SCCA 2 of 2007)
  • Robber Coussens v Attorney General (SCCA 8 of 1999)
  • Fulgensio Semako versus Edirisa Ssebugwawo [1979] HCB 15
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 7 of 1995)
  • Ecta (U) Ltd v Geraldine S. Namurimu & Another (SCCA 29 of 1994)
  • Butagira versus Deborah Namukasa (1992-1993) H.C.B 98 at 101
  • Hassanali versus City Motor Accessories Ltd [1972] EA 423

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kimanywenda v Brukam Limited (HCT – 01 – CV – CS – 0021 OF 2015) [2016] UGHCCD 106 (7 December 2016)
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.