Wakilii

Kisembo & Anor v Kiiza (HCT-00-CC-CA 7 of 2013)

High Court · [2014] UGCOMMC 30 · 2014 Appeal Partly Allowed — Damages Reduced AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court challenging quantum of general damages awarded
Decision
General damages award reduced from UGX 10,000,000 to UGX 5,000,000 plus interest from date of judgment

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 general damages of UGX 10,000,000 were excessive where special damages of UGX 13,800,000 plus costs and interest had already been awarded. The compensatory principle requires that damages restore the aggrieved party to the position they would have occupied had the contract been performed, not a better position. The award was reduced to UGX 5,000,000 to properly reflect the loss and inconvenience suffered.

Outcome

General damages award reduced from UGX 10,000,000 to UGX 5,000,000 plus interest from date of judgment

Facts

The respondent sued the appellants at Mengo Chief Magistrate's Court for recovery of UGX 14,800,000. The respondent had granted the first appellant power of attorney to obtain a loan using the respondent's property. Under a Memorandum of Understanding with the second appellant, the appellants pledged their Certificate of Title for property in Fort Portal as security. The appellants obtained a loan of UGX 8,000,000 but failed to repay it and transferred their property to their daughter instead of securing it to the respondent. The money lender sued the respondent and sold his land. The respondent was forced to sell his plot at a reduced price to settle the debt. The trial magistrate awarded special damages of UGX 13,800,000, legal fees of UGX 300,000, general damages of UGX 10,000,000, interest at court rate, and costs. The appellants appealed only the quantum of general damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate erred in awarding excessive general damages of UGX 10,000,000.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part.
  • General damages reduced from UGX 10,000,000 to UGX 5,000,000.
  • Interest awarded on general damages at court rate from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellants, to be taxed on the basis of the UGX 5,000,000 reduction achieved.

Rules and key headnotes

General Damages — Assessment — Compensatory Principle
General damages for breach of contract are compensatory in nature and are awarded to put the aggrieved party in the same position they would have been in had the contract been performed, not in a better position.
General Damages — Excessive Award — Appellate Interference
An appellate court may interfere with an award of general damages where the trial court acted upon a wrong principle of law or where the amount is so high or so low as to make it an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages to which the plaintiff was entitled.
General Damages — Duplication — Relationship with Special Damages
Where a court has already awarded substantial special damages with interest from filing of suit, general damages must be assessed with proper regard to avoid over-compensating the plaintiff and placing them in a better position than if the contract had been performed.
Appeals — Record of Appeal — CPR Order 43 rule 10
Under Order 43 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the responsibility for calling for records from the trial court rests with the High Court upon filing of a memorandum of appeal, not with the appellant. An appellant is not required to file a record of appeal.
Appeals — Extracted Decree — Not a Prerequisite
It is no longer a requirement to accompany an appeal with a formal order or extracted decree. The absence of an extracted decree does not render an appeal defective.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (11)

  • Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendu Edward (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Security Group Uganda Limited v Xerodoc Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 572 of 2006)
  • Visram and Kassan v Bhait (1965) EA 769
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (SCCA No. 8 of 1999)
  • Makula International v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor (CA No. 4 of 1981)
  • Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd v Grand Hotel (U) Ltd [1999] KALR 577
  • Patrick Nkoba v Rwenzori Highlands Tea Co. & Another (High Court Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1999)
  • Father Nasensio Begumisa & 3 Others v Eric Tibebaga (SCCA No. 17 of 2002)
  • Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (SCCA No. 6 of 2001)
  • Mbogo & Another v Shah [1968] EA 93
  • Haman Dass v John Corbine & Another [1959] 1 EA 834

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kisembo & Anor v Kiiza (HCT-00-CC-CA 7 of 2013) [2014] UGCommC 30 (26 March 2014)
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.