Wakilii

Leo Kitaka v Ben Kiyita (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1996)

High Court · [1994] UGHC 142 · 1994 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from judgment and decree of Grade I Magistrate pronounced on 8 March 1990 against the appellant for breach of contract
Decision
Appeal partly allowed. Damages reassessed and reduced. Respondent awarded Shs. 325,000/= general damages and Shs. 35,000/= special damages with 12% interest per annum.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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: The appellant was in breach of contract by failing to plough the respondent's five acres of land as agreed, and there was no agreement requiring the respondent to remove tree stumps. The trial court erred in awarding general damages based on an unproved claim; damages should be based on evidence of expected profit from bean yield. The appellant is liable for general damages of Shs. 325,000/= and special damages of Shs. 35,000/= with interest at 12% per annum. The respondent did not fail to mitigate his loss. Appeal partly allowed.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed. Damages reassessed and reduced. Respondent awarded Shs. 325,000/= general damages and Shs. 35,000/= special damages with 12% interest per annum.

Facts

Uganda Commercial Bank Mityana Branch entered into an agreement on behalf of the respondent (plaintiff below) with the appellant (defendant below) in August 1989. The appellant was to plough the respondent's five acres of land twice at Shs. 35,000/= per acre for each ploughing, totaling Shs. 70,000/=. The respondent intended to plant beans under the UCB Rural Farmers Scheme. The appellant received payment of Shs. 70,000/= but allegedly completed only the first ploughing and ploughed only one acre during the second ploughing. According to the appellant, he could not complete the work due to tree stumps on the land which the respondent refused to remove. The respondent contended there were no stumps and the appellant simply failed to perform. As a result of the incomplete ploughing, the respondent missed the planting season and could not cultivate beans. The Grade I Magistrate found the appellant in breach and awarded the respondent Shs. 430,000/= general damages and Shs. 70,000/= special damages. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant was in breach of contract by failing to complete ploughing the respondent's land.
  2. Whether the appellant's failure to complete the work was caused by the respondent's failure to remove tree stumps.
  3. Whether the general damages awarded were excessive.
  4. Whether the special damages of Shs. 70,000/= included money not claimed or refunded to the respondent.
  5. Whether the respondent failed to mitigate his loss by not planting in the one acre that was ploughed.

Orders

  • Appeal partly allowed.
  • Respondent awarded general damages of Shs. 325,000/=.
  • Respondent awarded special damages of Shs. 35,000/=.
  • Interest on general and special damages at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing suit until payment in full.
  • Respondent awarded costs in the lower court.
  • No order as to costs of appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Performance
Where a contract does not contain a term requiring one party to remove obstacles to performance, the party contracted to perform cannot rely on the existence of such obstacles as a defence to non-performance unless those obstacles genuinely prevented completion of the contract.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Annextures and Exhibits
A document annexed to a plaint does not automatically form part of the evidence unless proved at trial. However, where both parties refer to the document in their testimony and do not dispute its contents, and where its terms are testified to by witnesses, the court may rely on it even if it was not formally exhibited, provided the material terms are proved.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment of Expectation Loss
In assessing general damages for breach of contract, the court must base its award on evidence actually adduced, not on unproven claims in the pleadings. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the expected profit he would have made had the contract been performed, calculated from credible evidence of yield, market price, and deduction of expenses.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Pleading and Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. A court should not award special damages for heads of loss not pleaded, even where the plaintiff is unrepresented. If the court wishes to assist an unrepresented party, it should advise amendment of pleadings rather than award unpleaded damages.
Contract Law — Mitigation of Loss
The law of mitigation imposes a duty on a plaintiff to take all reasonable steps to mitigate loss caused by breach of contract. Whether the plaintiff has failed to take reasonable steps is a question of fact. The burden of proving failure to mitigate rests on the defendant. Where the defendant's conduct (such as repeated promises to complete performance) causes the plaintiff to delay mitigating action, the defendant cannot rely on the plaintiff's failure to mitigate.
Civil Procedure — Appellate Jurisdiction — Duty of First Appellate Court
As the first appellate court, the High Court has a duty to review the evidence and arrive at its own conclusions, reassessing findings of fact and credibility where necessary.
Contract Law — Termination — Consequences of Breach
When a contract is terminated by one party's failure to perform, both parties are discharged from further performance, but rights and obligations that had already accrued are not discharged. The injured party is entitled to recover damages suffered as a result of the breach.

Cases cited (4)

  • Padya v R (1957) EA 336
  • Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co (1968) EA 125
  • Kampala City Council v Nakaye (1972) EA
  • Payzu Ltd v Saunders (1919) 2 KB 541

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Leo Kitaka v Ben Kiyita (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1996) [1994] UGHC 142 (18 February 1994)
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.