Wakilii

Kyadok Hardware Ltd v Kwik Build Contractors Ltd (Civil Suit No. 40 of 2014)

High Court · [2018] UGCOMMC 83 · 2018 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of debt arising from sale of goods on credit
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with special and general damages, interest, and costs. Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

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

The High Court held that where goods are delivered to persons held out by a corporate buyer as having authority to receive them on its behalf, delivery is complete under the Sale of Goods Act. The plaintiff hardware supplier proved delivery of construction materials worth UGX 862,748,800 to the defendant contractor's construction site, received by the defendant's employees. The defendant paid only UGX 668,497,400, leaving a balance of UGX 194,251,400 proved and awarded as special damages. The defendant's counterclaim for alleged overpayment was dismissed for failure to discharge the burden of proof.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with special and general damages, interest, and costs. Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

Facts

The plaintiff hardware supplier entered into an oral contract with the defendant construction company to supply building materials on credit for a UN construction project at Entebbe Airport between November 2012 and November 2013. Materials were delivered with delivery notes to the defendant's construction site and received by the defendant's employees (store keeper, site engineer, and foreman) who signed delivery notes and issued goods received notes. The plaintiff claimed total supplies worth UGX 858,653,300, of which UGX 668,497,400 was paid, leaving a balance of UGX 190,165,900. The defendant disputed the claim, asserting materials supplied were worth only UGX 375,000,000 and that it had overpaid by UGX 28,497,400. The defendant alleged fraud by its store keeper in collusion with the plaintiff, claiming the store keeper was arrested but later stole company documents. The plaintiff maintained detailed records through invoices, delivery notes, and goods received notes, and produced bank statements showing payments received.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff in the sum claimed in the plaint.
  2. Whether the Plaintiff was paid in excess of Shs. 28,497,400/- as claimed in the counter claim.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Defendant to pay the Plaintiff special damages of Shs. 194,251,400/-.
  • The Defendant to pay the Plaintiff general damages of Shs. 10,000,000/-.
  • Interest to be paid on the special damages at the rate of 21% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • Interest to be paid on the general damages at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Taxed costs of the suit to be paid by the Defendant.
  • Counter claim dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Sale of Goods — Delivery to Agent — Authority to Accept Delivery
Where under a contract the seller of goods is required to deliver them at the buyer's premises, the seller fulfills the obligation by delivering them to a person who apparently has authority to receive them on the buyer's behalf, including employees such as store keepers, site engineers, or foremen held out by the buyer as having such authority.
Sale of Goods — Delivery — Deemed Delivery under Sale of Goods Act s.32(1)
Under Section 32(1) of the Sale of Goods Act, where in pursuance of a contract of sale the seller is authorized or required to send the goods to the buyer, delivery of the goods to a carrier for transmission to the buyer is prima facie deemed to be delivery of the goods to the buyer.
Burden of Proof — Special Damages — Proof Required
Special damages represent damage in fact caused by the wrong and must be specifically claimed and proved with the best available particulars communicated to the opposing party before trial. Where a party seeks to recover a specific sum as unpaid debt, that party bears the burden of proving the amount owed.
Burden of Proof — Proof of Payment — Onus on Party Alleging Payment
Where one party alleges that it made payment to another and the other denies receipt of the payment, the onus is on the party who alleges payment to prove the payment. This principle applies equally where a party claims to have made an overpayment.
Pleadings — Variance Between Pleadings and Proof — Effect
A variance between the amount claimed in pleadings and the amount proved in evidence does not defeat a claim where the plaintiff has pleaded full particulars showing the nature and extent of damage claimed and the defendant has been sufficiently informed of the case to meet, particularly where the variance results from an error in addition and the exhibits contain the whole amount proved.
Breach of Contract — General Damages — Assessment
General damages for breach of contract are such damages as the law presumes to be the natural or probable consequence of the defendant's act, arising by inference of law and requiring no specific proof. The court awards such sum as it deems reasonable in the opinion and judgment of a reasonable person, taking into account the time the breach has persisted and other relevant circumstances.
Interest — Court's Discretion — Rate and Commencement
Where no rate of interest is agreed between parties, the court has discretionary power under Section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act to award interest at a rate reflecting the current commercial value of money. Interest on special damages runs from the date of filing suit until payment in full, while interest on general damages runs from the date of judgment at the court rate of 6% per annum.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (10)

  • Galbraith & Grant Ltd v Block [1922] 2 KB 155
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v Tanzanite Corporation Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2004)
  • Haji Aumani Mutenkanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Joseph Constantine Steamship Line v Imperial Smelting Corporation Ltd [1942] AC 154
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Shah v Mohammed Haji Abdallah [1962] EA 769
  • JK Patel v Spear Motors Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1991)
  • Crescent Transportation Co. Ltd v B.M Technical Services Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2000)
  • Harbutts Plasticine Ltd v Wyne Tank & Pump Co. Ltd [1970] 1 QB 447
  • Siet Co v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kyadok Hardware Ltd v Kwik Build Contractors Ltd (Civil Suit No. 40 of 2014) [2018] UGCommC 83 (20 February 2018)
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.