Wakilii

Kyamuhoro Transporters Limited v Roko Construction Limited [2025] UGCOMMC 227

High Court · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract — claim for recovery of outstanding payment for timber supplied
Decision
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with recovery of outstanding balance, general damages, interest and costs

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 the Defendant breached its contractual obligation to pay for timber supplied by the Plaintiff between July 2019 and January 2020. The Plaintiff proved delivery of timber worth UGX 99,358,560 and demonstrated that the Defendant made partial payments totalling UGX 41,782,000, leaving an outstanding balance of UGX 57,576,560. The court awarded the outstanding balance, general damages of UGX 20,000,000, and interest at 20% per annum from the date of demand notice.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with recovery of outstanding balance, general damages, interest and costs

Facts

The Plaintiff supplied timber worth UGX 99,358,560 to the Defendant between July 2019 and January 2020. Each delivery was acknowledged by the Defendant's timber department official who stamped the invoices. On 6 August 2020, the Defendant's accounts department confirmed an outstanding balance of UGX 97,046,560 after a payment of UGX 2,312,000, and proposed a payment plan in four instalments. The Defendant made further payments of UGX 5,500,000 and UGX 10,000,000 but failed to settle the remaining balance. The Plaintiff issued a demand notice on 10 January 2022 before instituting this suit. At trial, the Defendant produced receipts evidencing total payments of UGX 41,782,000 but failed to prove payment of the full invoiced amount.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant breached the contract for the supply of timber between her and the Plaintiff?
  2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought?

Orders

  • The Defendant breached the Contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
  • The Plaintiff is entitled to recover the outstanding balance of UGX 57,576,560 from the Defendant.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 20,000,000.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded interest at the rate of 20% per annum on the outstanding balance from 10th January 2022 until payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded the Costs of the Suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Civil Proceedings — Standard of Proof on Balance of Probabilities
In civil proceedings, the burden of proof lies on the party who alleges and that party must prove their case on a balance of probabilities. Once a plaintiff has led credible evidence establishing the claim, the evidential burden shifts to the defendant to rebut it.
Civil Procedure — Joint Scheduling Memorandum — Matters Agreed as Facts — Finality and Non-Revisitation
Matters agreed upon in a joint scheduling memorandum as agreed facts need not be revisited by either party or the court. Where parties have expressly agreed that a contract existed for supply of goods, neither party may subsequently argue to the contrary.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Failure to Pay for Goods Supplied — Proof of Delivery and Non-Payment
Where parties have adopted an irregular but mutually accepted mode of transaction whereby goods are delivered with invoices and acknowledged by the purchaser's officials, that practice binds both parties. A defendant who accepts that practice and makes partial payments against invoices cannot later challenge the validity of unpaid invoices on procedural grounds alone.
Evidence — Credibility of Witnesses — Deliberate Untruths and Evasive Testimony — Weight to be Attached
Where a witness demonstrates deliberate untruths or evasive testimony through inconsistent statements and purposeful omissions, such conduct constitutes deliberate distortions intended to mislead the court. The court may attach little to no weight to such a witness's evidence.
Contract Law — Damages — General Damages for Breach of Contract — Assessment Principles
In assessing general damages for breach of contract, the court must consider the value of the subject matter, the nature and extent of the breach, and the economic inconveniences suffered by the injured party. The purpose of damages is to restore the injured party to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred.
Contract Law — Interest on Debt — Discretionary Award — Basis for Award
The basis for awarding interest on an unpaid contractual debt is that the defendant has taken and used the plaintiff's money and benefited from it. Where a defendant withholds payment after demand, the court may exercise its discretion to award interest at a rate it considers appropriate from the date of the demand notice until payment in full.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (16)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Kabaco (U) Ltd v Turyahikayo Bonny (HCCS No. 14 of 2021)
  • Ali Muwanga Kibirige v Yako Bank Uganda Ltd and Another (HCMA No. 219 of 2023)
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006)
  • Kampala District Land Board and Another v National Housing and Construction Co Ltd (SCCA No. 2 of 2004)
  • Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (Civil Suit No. 0580 of 2003)
  • Namatovu Margaret v Tom Kaaya and Another (Civil Suit No. 432 of 2005)
  • Chesakit Matayo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2004)
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (SCCA No. 17 of 1992)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Premchandra Shenoi and Another v Maximov Oleg Petrovich (SCCA No. 9 of 2003)
  • Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 31 of 1995)
  • Henry Ssempa v Kamagagambire David (HCCS 408 of 2014)
  • Lyamuleme David v Attorney General (SCCA No. 4 of 2013)
  • Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 873

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kyamuhoro Transporters Limited v Roko Construction Limited 2025 UGCommC 227 (31 January 2025)
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.