Wakilii

Lira Pentecostal Assembly v Sam Engola (Civil Suit No. 464 GF 1989)

High Court · [1990] UGHC 48 · 1990 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 of sale; default judgment obtained; damages assessed on plaintiff's evidence
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with orders for specific performance or monetary payment, damages for loss of profit, exemplary damages, interest, and costs.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 2 times 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

The court held that the defendant's failure to deliver a reconditioned Toyota Hilux pick-up after receiving full payment constituted a breach of contract. The plaintiff was entitled to specific performance or payment of the current market price (UGX 7,000,000) for a similar vehicle, loss of profit damages (UGX 500,000), and exemplary damages (UGX 300,000) for the defendant's deliberate conduct in selling the vehicle to a third party. Interest at 20% per annum was awarded from judgment until full payment.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with orders for specific performance or monetary payment, damages for loss of profit, exemplary damages, interest, and costs.

Facts

In 1984, Lira Pentecostal Assembly (plaintiff), a registered church organisation, entered into a verbal contract with Sam Engola (defendant), an importer of reconditioned motor vehicles, to purchase a reconditioned Toyota Hilux pick-up for UGX 2,200,000. Payment was to be by instalments, with delivery upon final payment. The plaintiff required the vehicle to raise funds for projects benefiting orphans and widows in Lira District. The plaintiff paid the full contract price, and the defendant handed over the vehicle key. However, the defendant never delivered the vehicle and instead sold it to a third party. The defendant was duly served but failed to enter appearance or file a defence. Default judgment was entered on 2 November 1989. The matter proceeded to assessment of damages only.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant's failure to deliver the motor vehicle despite full payment constituted a breach of contract.
  2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance or payment of a sum sufficient to purchase a similar vehicle in the open market.
  3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages for loss of profit.
  4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to exemplary damages given the defendant's conduct in selling the vehicle to a third party.

Orders

  • Defendant ordered to deliver to the plaintiff a reconditioned Toyota Hilux pick-up or pay UGX 7,000,000 being the current price of such a vehicle in the open market in Kampala.
  • Defendant to pay UGX 500,000 being loss of earnings.
  • Defendant to pay UGX 300,000 being exemplary damages (including general damages).
  • Interest on the decretal amount at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Measure of Damages — Hadley v Baxendale Rule
A party who fails to carry out his side of a contractual bargain commits a breach of contract, and the other party is entitled to damages which may fairly and reasonably be considered either as arising naturally from such a breach or as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract as the probable result of the breach.
Contract Law — Remedies for Breach — Specific Performance — Discretion of Court
Section 52 of the Sale of Goods Act gives the court wide discretion whether or not to order specific performance. Courts may order specific performance where the subject matter is an ordinary item of commerce obtainable in the open market, and may order either delivery of the goods or payment of such sum as would enable the plaintiff to purchase similar goods in the open market.
Contract Law — Remedies for Breach — Specific Performance — Alternative Monetary Relief
The principle behind an order for specific performance, like the award of damages, is to put the plaintiff in the position he would have been in had he received the goods of the specific quality at the time and place contracted for. The court may order payment of a sum sufficient to purchase replacement goods in the open market where specific performance cannot be ensured.
Damages & Quantum — Loss of Profit — Standard of Proof — Exercise of Discretion
While strict proof of loss of profit is not required, the type of business to which goods were intended to be put and the manner in which profit would have been earned should be stated with reasonable clarity. The court retains discretion to award damages for loss of profit and to determine the quantum based on the evidence presented.
Damages & Quantum — Exemplary Damages — Conduct Calculated to Make Profit
Exemplary damages are punitive in nature and may be awarded where the conduct of the defendant has been calculated by him to make a profit for himself. Where exemplary damages are found appropriate, general damages and exemplary damages should not be awarded separately; a single figure should be awarded to satisfy both heads.
Contract Law — Remedies for Breach — Interest on Damages — Discretion of Court
The award of interest on a decretal amount is a matter within the discretion of the court. Courts will normally award interest where the defendant is responsible for delay in payment or performance, particularly where the delay is deliberate and without justifiable reason.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Sale of Goods Act Cap 79 s.52

Cases cited (5)

  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 94 Ch 34
  • Alexander Swambale v Spear Motors Ltd (HCCS No. 690 of 1988)
  • Henry Munyawhganizi v General Machinery Ltd (HCCS No. 468 of 1987)
  • Banyankole Kweterana Growers Co-operative Union Ltd v Spear Motors Ltd (HCCS No. 247 of 1988)
  • Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration (1983) HCB 4

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Lira Pentecostal Assembly v Sam Engola (Civil Suit No. 464 GF 1989) [1990] UGHC 48 (8 June 1990)
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.