Wakilii

Kiwanuka Robert v Semakula Yusuf (Civil Suit No. 0449 of 2020)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 334 · 2022 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of land sale agreement with interlocutory judgment entered for failure to file defence
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with refund of purchase price, 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

Held that where a vendor under a land sale agreement fails to deliver vacant possession and title after receiving full payment, the purchaser is entitled to a refund of the purchase price as special damages. The defendant's failure to file a defence resulted in deemed admission of the claim. General damages were awarded for inconvenience caused by the breach. Interest on special damages was awarded at 18% per annum from filing date, and 5% per annum on general damages from judgment date.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with refund of purchase price, general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

On 3 September 2018, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a land sale agreement for two plots in Kyadondo Block 185, Kito-Kira, Wakiso District, for UGX 375,000,000. The plaintiff paid the entire purchase price, which the defendant acknowledged by signing the agreements. The plaintiff also paid UGX 25,000,000 as processing fees for the land title. Despite full payment, the defendant refused to deliver vacant possession or transfer the land titles. The plaintiff demanded a refund, which the defendant refused. No defence was filed, and interlocutory judgment was entered against the defendant. The matter proceeded to formal proof on 25 October 2022.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the sum of money claimed as a refund.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to general damages.

Orders

  • Plaintiff granted UGX 375,000,000 as special damages.
  • Plaintiff granted UGX 25,000,000 as facilitation paid to process title.
  • General damages of UGX 40,000,000 granted to the plaintiff.
  • Interest granted on special damages at 18% per annum from date of filing suit till payment in full.
  • Interest granted on general damages at 5% per annum from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Failure to Deliver Vacant Possession After Payment
Where a vendor under a land sale agreement receives full payment of the purchase price but fails to deliver vacant possession and transfer title as agreed, the vendor is in breach of contract and the purchaser is entitled to a refund of the purchase price.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Judgment — Effect of Failure to File Defence
A party who does not enter appearance and file a written statement of defence is deemed to have admitted the allegations in the plaint. Where interlocutory judgment has been entered, the question of liability is no longer in issue; only the assessment of quantum of damages remains.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Proof Requirements
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Where payments are pleaded with specific figures and not challenged by the defendant, the plaintiff has proved the claim to the satisfaction of the court.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Breach of Contract
Breach of contract entitles the injured party to an award of general damages. To be eligible for general damages, the party must have suffered loss or inconvenience. The purpose of contractual damages is to place the party which suffered loss in the same position they would have been in had the contract been properly performed.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Discretion of Court
Under section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court has power to award interest where no rate is agreed upon. The rate is fixed at the discretion of the trial judge, taking into account the nature of the transaction and the period for which money has been withheld.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (13)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Nakana Trading Co Ltd v Coffee Marketing Board (Civil Suit No. 137 of 1991)
  • Smith v Auto Electric Services Ltd (1951) 24 KLR 22
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 07 of 1995)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v Tanzanite Corporation (Court of Appeal No. 171 of 2004)
  • Roko Construction Co v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 517 of 2008)
  • Bank of Uganda v Fred Masaba & 5 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 03 of 1998)
  • ESSO Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardan [1976] 2 All ER
  • Simon Mbalire v Moses Mukiibi (High Court Civil Suit No. 85 of 1995)
  • Musisi Edward v Babihuga Hilda [2007] HCB 84
  • Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850
  • Crescent Transportation Co Ltd v Bin Technical Services Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 25 of 2000)
  • James Mbabazi & Another v Matco Stores Ltd & Another (Court of Appeal Civil Reference No. 15 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiwanuka_Robert_v_Semakula_Yusuf_(Civil_Suit_No._0449_of_2020)_[2022]_UGHCLD_334_(22_November_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.