Kobusingye v Zimbiha (Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2019)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's finding that the Memorandum of Understanding under which the appellant claimed 10% of the respondent's government compensation was a champertous agreement, illegal and unenforceable. The court held that the Contracts Act 2010, including its section 19(2) exceptions, did not apply because the agreement was concluded on 25 August 2010, before the Act commenced on 15 September 2011; statutes do not act retrospectively. The applicable law was therefore common law, under which champerty agreements are void. The court found the agreement was not made in good faith. Having declared the underlying contract illegal, the court held there was no basis to assess quantum meruit.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court ruling that the Memorandum of Understanding was illegal and unenforceable upheld

Facts

The appellant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the respondent, her daughter-in-law, on 25 August 2010. Under it, the appellant provided material and financial support to facilitate the administration of an estate, including surveying land, negotiating with government, upkeep of beneficiaries and litigation costs, due to the respondent's financial incapacity. In return, the appellant was to receive a capped amount, expressed as 10% of the value of the subject matter, being the compensation the respondent was awarded after successfully suing the Government in Civil Suit No. 109 of 2011. The appellant sued claiming approximately UGX 3.578 billion for breach of the agreement and specific performance. The High Court upheld the respondent's preliminary objection that the Memorandum of Understanding was champertous, illegal, null and void and unenforceable, and dismissed the suit. The appellant appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the Memorandum of Understanding between the appellant and respondent was champertous and contrary to public policy.
2. Whether the exceptions under section 19(2) of the Contracts Act 2010 applied to render the agreement enforceable.
3. Whether the appellant could rely on the principle of quantum meruit for her contributions despite the illegality of the agreement.
4. Whether the trial judge improperly considered facts meant for trial in determining a preliminary objection.

Orders

• The appeal is dismissed.
• Costs awarded here and below to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Contracts Act 2010 s.19(1)
• Contracts Act 2010 s.19(2)
• Acts of Parliament Act s.14(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.30
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.86
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 28
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
• Contracts Act 2010 Commencement Instrument 2011 r.2

Cases cited (9)

• Fr. Narsensio Begumisa and 3 Others v Eric Kibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 77 of 2002)
• Price Waterhouse Coopers Inc v National Potato Co-operative Ltd 2004 (6) SA 66 (SCA)
• Ram Coomar Coondoo v Chunder Canto Mookerjee (1886) 2 AC 210
• Trepca Mines Ltd [1962] 3 All ER 351
• Giles v Thompson [1993] 3 All ER 321
• Factortame Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [2002] QB 397
• Trendtex Trading Corp v Credit Suisse [1982] AC 679
• Shell (U) Ltd and 9 Others v Muwema and Mugerwa Advocates (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2013)
• Act Automobile Spares Ltd vs. Crane Bank Ltd and Rajesh Pakesh (supra)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Chebet Francis Mamadi v Francis Bosha Arapayanga (Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2024)
• Kobusingye v Zimbiha (Misc.Civil Application No. 245 of 2019)

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