Wakilii

Kubajo and Another v Drate (Civil Suit 889 of 2020)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 143 · 2022 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money had and received following failure of joint agricultural enterprise; interlocutory judgment entered after defendant failed to file defence
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiffs; defendant ordered to pay the outstanding sums with interest and costs

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations fading — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 defendant receives money intended for the plaintiffs' benefit under a joint agricultural enterprise and fails to account for proceeds despite documentary evidence of remittances, the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery under the doctrine of money had and received. The defendant's failure to file a defence and prove that equity and good conscience does not demand a refund shifts the evidential burden. Interest awarded at commercial rates from the date payment became due. General damages not recoverable absent proof of special circumstances beyond ordinary delay in debt payment.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiffs; defendant ordered to pay the outstanding sums with interest and costs

Facts

In 2017, the plaintiffs and defendant agreed to undertake a joint farming agricultural enterprise in Northern Uganda. Between 2017 and 2019, the plaintiffs remitted £19,980.5 and UGX 32,736,224 to the defendant for this purpose. The defendant sent documentary evidence showing he had supplied farm produce to companies in Kampala and Matugga in 2019, but never accounted for the proceeds to the plaintiffs despite numerous demands and multiple promises to refund the money. The defendant was duly served with summons but failed to file a defence. Interlocutory judgment was entered on 3rd March 2021 and the suit proceeded to formal proof.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of money advanced to the defendant.
  2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the rest of the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiffs against the defendant.
  • Defendant to pay the outstanding sum of UGX 32,736,224.
  • Defendant to pay the outstanding sum of £19,980.5.
  • Interest on UGX 32,736,224 at the rate of 23% per annum from 1st October 2019 until payment in full.
  • Interest on £19,980.5 at the rate of 8% per annum from 1st October 2019 until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Money Had and Received — Elements of the Cause of Action
A cause of action for money had and received is restitutionary in nature and requires proof that: (i) the defendant received money intended to be used for the benefit of the plaintiff; (ii) the money was not used for the plaintiff's benefit; and (iii) the defendant has not given the money to the plaintiff. The claim is not premised on wrongdoing but seeks to determine to which party the money rightfully belongs and to prevent unjust enrichment.
Money Had and Received — Burden of Proof
Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case that the defendant received money belonging to the plaintiff, the evidential burden shifts to the defendant to prove that equity and good conscience does not demand a refund. The defendant's failure to meet this burden results in judgment for the plaintiff.
Interest on Debt — Principles for Award
Where payment of a just debt has been improperly withheld, the court should award interest at a rate that is fair and equitable as compensation for the deprivation of use of money. Interest represents either the profit the plaintiff might have made if he had use of the money or the loss suffered because he did not have that use. In commercial transactions, the court considers the prevailing economic value of money, inflation, and currency depreciation.
General Damages for Breach of Contract — Delay in Payment of Debt
General damages are not recoverable for delay in payment of a debt beyond the contractual due date. The common law does not assume that delay in payment of a debt will of itself cause damage. Loss must be proved. General damages are awarded only for special circumstances where the loss did not arise from the ordinary course of things and of which the defendant had actual knowledge.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (21)

  • London, Chatham & Dover Railway Co v South Eastern Railway Co (1892) 1 Ch 120
  • Carmichael v Caledonian Railway Co (1870) 8 M (HL) 119
  • Riches v Westminster Bank Ltd [1947] 1 All ER 469
  • Dodika Limited & Others v United Luck Group Holdings Limited [2020] EWHC 2101 (Comm)
  • Sempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [2008] 1 AC 561
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Ltd (Civil Suit No. 234 of 2011)
  • Kinyera v Management Committee of Laroo Boarding Primary School (Civil Suit No. 99 of 2013)
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 13 of 1993)
  • Erukana Kuwe v Isaac Patrick Matovu and Another (Civil Suit No. 177 of 2003)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
  • Charles Acire v M Engola (Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Storms v Hutchinson [1905] AC 515
  • Kabona Brothers Agencies v Uganda Metal Products & Enamelling Co Ltd [1981-1982] HCB 74
  • Kiwanuka Godfrey v Arua District Local Government (Civil Suit No. 186 of 2006)
  • Hungerfords v Walker (1989) 171 CLR 125
  • President of India v La Pintada Compagnia Navigacia SA [1985] AC 104
  • London, Chatham and Dover Railway Co v South Eastern Railway Co [1893] AC 429
  • Jennifer Rwanyindo Aurelia and Another v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1999)
  • National Pharmacy Ltd v Kampala City Council [1979] HCB 25
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Constructions [1981] HCB 35

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kubajo and Another v Drate (Civil Suit 889 of 2020) [2022] UGCommC 143 (5 July 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.