Wakilii

Kyabahwa v China Henan Int'l Group Co. Ltd (Civil Suit No. 721 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 68 · 2021 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of consultancy agreement and payment of fees
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with declarations that the contract was breached, the deed of variation is void, and the defendant remains indebted. Damages and interest awarded.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 9 (treatment unverified) 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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 9 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations fading — 10 citing cases on record, 6 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 the defendant breached a consultancy contract by refusing to pay the full contract price and procured a deed of variation through fraudulent misrepresentation. The deed of variation was declared void. The defendant was ordered to pay the outstanding balance of USD 900,000 plus damages for breach of contract and inconvenience, together with 20% commercial interest. The defendant's failure to disclose the consultancy agreement in its bid to the Uganda National Roads Authority was unlawful.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with declarations that the contract was breached, the deed of variation is void, and the defendant remains indebted. Damages and interest awarded.

Facts

The plaintiff entered into a consultancy contract with the defendant on 30 October 2015 to provide bid preparation services for the construction of Rukungiri-Kihihi-Ishasha/Kanungu road. The agreed consideration was 4% of the contract price, translating to USD 2,200,000, to be paid from the first instalment received by the defendant from UNRA. After several cancelled bids, the defendant won the contract in 2018 and received the advance payment in December 2018 but did not pay the plaintiff. The defendant then misrepresented to the plaintiff that the lead funder (Africa Development Bank) had cancelled the loan and that the defendant would pre-finance the project, inducing the plaintiff to sign a deed of variation on 14 January 2019 accepting USD 1,300,000 in full settlement. The plaintiff later discovered the misrepresentation was false and sued for the balance of USD 900,000. The defendant also failed to disclose the consultancy agreement in its letter of bid to UNRA.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of USD 900,000.
  2. Whether the defendant was obliged to disclose the plaintiff's consultancy agreement of 30 October 2015 in its bid and if so, whether the non-disclosure was lawful.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Declaration that the defendant breached the parties' consultancy agreement of 30 October 2015 by refusing to pay the balance of the consultancy fees.
  • Declaration that the deed of variation of the consultancy agreement entered into by the parties on 14 January 2019 is illegal, void and of no effect.
  • Declaration that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of USD 900,000.
  • The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff USD 900,000 as the outstanding balance on the contract.
  • The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff USD 200,000 as damages for breach of contract.
  • The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff USD 250,000 as general damages for inconvenience.
  • The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff commercial interest at the rate of 20% per annum on all sums awarded from the date of filing the suit to the date of payment in full.
  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff's costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach — Repudiatory Breach — Failure to Pay Contract Price
Failure by a party to pay the agreed contract price constitutes a repudiatory breach of the contract going to the root of the agreement, where payment is the very adventure for which the other party entered into the contract and performed their obligations.
Contract Law — Fraudulent Misrepresentation — Elements
Fraudulent misrepresentation requires proof that the defendant made a false representation of a material fact knowing it to be false or without knowing whether it was true, intending to induce the plaintiff to act in reliance on it, that the plaintiff did act in reliance, and suffered pecuniary damage as a result.
Contract Law — Deed of Variation — Voidability Where Procured by Fraudulent Misrepresentation
A deed of variation that induces a party to accept a lesser sum than the agreed contract price through fraudulent misrepresentation is voidable under section 16(1) of the Contracts Act, and the defrauded party is entitled to insist on full performance of the original contract under section 16(4).
Contract Law — Consideration — Pinnel's Rule — Payment of Lesser Sum Cannot Satisfy Greater Debt
Under the rule in Pinnel's Case, payment of a lesser sum cannot constitute satisfaction of a greater debt unless there is a true accord under which the creditor voluntarily agrees to accept the lesser sum and it would be inequitable for the creditor to insist on the balance. Where consent to accept a lesser sum is obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, there is no true accord and the creditor is not barred from demanding the full debt.
Civil Procedure — Witness Statements — Failure to File — Application to Re-open Case
Where a party fails to comply with court-ordered timelines to file witness statements without justifiable explanation and subsequently closes their case, an application to re-open the case to file witness statements belatedly will be refused. Court orders must be complied with and failure constitutes contempt. The right to be heard under Article 28 of the Constitution does not protect a party who sits on their rights and ignores court schedules.
Commercial Law — Procurement — Bidding Process versus Procurement Process
A bidding process is a subset of the procurement process. A consultancy contract for bid preparation services tied to a procurement process remains valid throughout successive bidding rounds for the same project where the procurement itself has not been cancelled, even where individual bidding rounds are cancelled and retendered under new reference numbers.
Damages — Interest — Commercial Contracts — Discretionary Rate
In determining a just and reasonable rate of interest on damages in commercial contracts where no prior rate is agreed, the court must consider the unique circumstances of each case, the prevailing economic and political situation, inflation, currency depreciation, and the fact that the plaintiff has been deprived of the use of their money. A rate of 20% per annum is appropriate for commercial transactions.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (36)

  • Printing and Numerical Registering Co v Sampson (1875) LR EQ 462
  • Kabenge v Mineral Access Systems Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 275 of 2011)
  • Scorpion Holdings Ltd v Lion Assurance Co Ltd (Civil Suit No. 221 of 2013)
  • Stockloser v Johnson [1954] 1 All ER 630
  • Mathews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd & Sons [2013] VSC 523
  • Goyal v Goyal & 3 Ors (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 109 of 2004)
  • Kampala Financial Services v Muwanga Grace & Anor (Civil Suit No. 228 of 2013)
  • Ndawula Ronald v Hiraa Traders (Miscellaneous Application No. 1153 of 2020)
  • Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1995)
  • Seruwagi Mohamed v Yuasa Investment Ltd (Civil Suit No. 334 of 2013)
  • Al Hamadani v Ali and Others [2015] EWHC 38 (QB)
  • Okiro v Cipriano (High Court Civil Revision No. 2 of 2019)
  • Jakana and Anor v Nsabimana (Civil Suit No. 428 of 2015)
  • Kajibwami Micheal v Byomuhanqi Francis (Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2009)
  • Re Namatovu Tebajjukira (1992-93) HCB 85
  • Nakisenyi & Anor v Insurance Company of East Africa (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 652 of 2013)
  • Baxter v Baxter [1948] AC 274
  • Mugisha v Chartis (Uganda) (Civil Suit No. 190 of 2009)
  • Kazzora v Rukuba (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1992)
  • NSSF v Alcon International Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009)
  • Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117
  • D & C Builders Ltd v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617
  • Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co
  • Bettini v Gye (1876) 1 QBD 183
  • Gava and Gava v Gava (Miscellaneous Cause No. 77 of 2010)
  • Kashwahiri & Anor v Kajungu Denis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Mabosi [1996] UGSC 16
  • Superior Construction & Engineering Ltd v Notay Engineering Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 24 of 1992)
  • National Pharmacy Ltd Vs KCC [1979] 256
  • Liska Ltd v DeAngelis [1996] EA 6
  • Mark Extraction Enterprises Ltd v Nalongo Orphanage (High Court Civil Suit No. 4 of 1996)
  • Radia v Warid Telecom Uganda Ltd (Civil Suit No. 224 of 2011)
  • Shenoi and Anor v Maximov Oleg Petrovich (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003)
  • SIETCO Vs NOBLE BUILDERS (U) Ltd
  • Rwanyindo Aurelia & Anor v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1999)
  • Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd & Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)

Cases citing this judgment (9)

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.

Kyabahwa v China Henan Int'l Group Co. Ltd (Civil Suit No. 721 of 2020) [2021] UGCommC 68 (19 March 2021)
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.