Wakilii

Kwehangana v Amara (Civil Appeal 15 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 918 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment dismissing claim for breach of contract and refund
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent

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 a contract for land title processing was frustrated under Contracts Act s.66 when the land was discovered to fall within a government gazetted resettlement scheme, making performance impossible. Where frustration is established and the contractor has incurred expenses in partial performance before impossibility arose, those expenses may be retained and the party alleging breach cannot recover the deposit paid. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

The Appellant paid the Respondent UGX 4,000,000 as a deposit under a contract for the Respondent to process a certificate of title for the Appellant's approximately 46-acre land in Kagadi District. The Respondent engaged surveyors who surveyed and plotted the land. During the deed plan printing stage, cartographers discovered the land fell within the Kagadi Resettlement Scheme, a government gazetted area where individual title issuance was prohibited. The titling process was halted. The Appellant sued for breach of contract and refund of the deposit. The Respondent defended on the basis that the contract became impossible to perform due to the government scheme designation. The trial magistrate found no breach since work was done until frustration arose, and dismissed the suit with each party bearing own costs. The Appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned trial Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence and reached the correct conclusion that the Respondent was not liable.
  2. Whether the learned trial Magistrate properly considered the evidence of DW1 regarding expertise in land conveyance.
  3. Whether the learned trial Magistrate erred in relying on the accountability note without considering documents of payment for service.
  4. Whether the learned trial Magistrate erred in failing to frame issues to guide the court.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Frustration — Impossibility of Performance — Discovery of Government Gazetted Land During Performance
A contract for land title processing is frustrated under section 66(1) of the Contracts Act 2010 where, during performance, the land is discovered to fall within a government gazetted scheme that prohibits individual title issuance, rendering completion of the contract impossible through no fault of either party.
Contract Law — Frustration — Burden of Proof
The onus of proving frustration of a contract is on the party alleging it; once frustration is proved, the burden shifts to the party denying frustration to prove default by the other party.
Contract Law — Frustration — Recovery of Payments and Retention of Expenses
Under section 66(3) of the Contracts Act 2010, where a contract is frustrated, a party who incurred expenses before discharge in performance of the contract may, if the court considers it just having regard to all circumstances, retain the whole or part of sums paid which do not exceed the expenses incurred in partial performance.
Contract Law — Frustration — Loss Lies Where It Falls
Where a contract is discharged by frustration, loss lies where it falls unless it would be unjust for one party to retain the benefit of the other party's performance; parties are excused from further liability to perform but payments previously made and rights previously accrued according to the contract terms will not be disturbed.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — New Matters on Appeal
Matters not raised or canvassed before the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal for the appellate court to review.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (9)

  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2021)
  • Fr. Narsensio Begumisa and 3 Others v Eric Tiberaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2000)
  • Davis Contractors Ltd v Hare Urban District Council [1956] 1 All ER 145
  • Revolutionary Ads & Designs Ltd v Board of Trustees of Nakivubo Stadium (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 131 of 2013)
  • J.K Patel v Spear Motors Ltd (High Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1991)
  • Chandler v Webster [1904] 1 KB 493
  • Krell v Henry [1903] 1 KB 740
  • Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1942] 2 All ER 122
  • Monica Birugi and 3 Others v Kusemererwa Evace and 2 Others (High Court Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kwehangana v Amara (Civil Appeal 15 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 918 (13 September 2024)
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.