Wakilii

Lubega v Gombe (CIVIL SUIT NO. 192 OF 2009)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 182 · 2017 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for refund of purchase price and damages
Decision
Suit allowed with orders for refund of purchase price, lost income, 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 where a buyer pays the full purchase price for a motor vehicle after initial impoundment, the seller is bound to deliver the vehicle in the same workable condition it was in when impounded. Where the seller delivers the vehicle in a dilapidated state, the buyer does not receive value for money and is entitled to a refund of the purchase price. A seller is vicariously liable for acts of his bailiff committed within the course of dealing with the buyer. The plaintiff was awarded the refund, lost income, general damages, and interest.

Outcome

Suit allowed with orders for refund of purchase price, lost income, general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

The Plaintiff purchased two motor vehicles from the Defendant for a total of Ug. Shs. 78,000,000/=, making a down payment of Ug. Shs. 43,000,000/=. The parties agreed on 27 October 2008 that the balance would be paid by 30 November 2008. When the Plaintiff failed to pay, the Defendant had the suit vehicle impounded on 6 February 2009. In July 2009, the Plaintiff paid the balance of Ug. Shs. 35,000,000/=, interest of Ug. Shs. 3,000,000/=, and lawyer's fees of Ug. Shs. 1,500,000/=, totalling Ug. Shs. 39,500,000/=. The vehicle was then delivered to him in a dilapidated condition. The Plaintiff rejected it and demanded a refund. Witnesses testified that during the impoundment period the vehicle had been used to ferry merchandise on long-distance trips and was seen ploughing the Masaka road, contrary to the Defendant's claim that it was parked at court and later in Wandegeya. The Defendant had consented in October 2010 to repair the vehicle but failed to do so, leading to the consent judgment being set aside in May 2015.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the money claimed as purchase price of the suit motor vehicle.
  2. What are the remedies available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Defendant shall refund to the Plaintiff Ug. Shs: 46,000,000/= the purchase price of the suit vehicle.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded Ug. Shs: 2,500,000/= per month as lost income from July 2009 the date the Plaintiff paid the balance till payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded general damages of Ug. Shs: 20,000,000/= for the inconvenience occasioned through the failure to deliver the vehicle in good condition and the failure to refund his money.
  • Costs are awarded to the Plaintiff to be paid by the Defendant.
  • Interest on (i) and (ii) above is awarded at 10% per annum from July 2009 the date the Plaintiff paid the balance till payment in full.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Sale of Goods — Seller's Obligation to Deliver Goods in Agreed Condition
Where a buyer pays the full purchase price for goods after initial impoundment by the seller, the seller is bound to deliver the goods in the same workable condition they were in at the time of impoundment, and by accepting the full payment the seller repudiates the initial contract and enters into a new contractual arrangement.
Contract Law — Sale of Goods — Breach — Failure to Deliver Goods in Agreed Condition
Where a seller delivers goods in a dilapidated state after accepting full payment, the buyer does not receive value for money and is entitled to a refund of the purchase price.
Tort Law — Vicarious Liability — Master and Servant — Acts of Bailiff
A master is liable for the acts of his servant committed within the course of his employment, and where a bailiff acts on the instruction of and for the benefit of his master in dealing with goods, the master is vicariously liable for the bailiff's actions.
Evidence — Hearsay — Inadmissibility under Evidence Act
Hearsay evidence is inadmissible under section 59 of the Evidence Act, and testimony based solely on what a party was told by a third party who does not testify cannot be relied upon by the court.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (1)

  • Muwonge v Attorney General (1967) EA 17

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lubega v Gombe (CIVIL SUIT NO. 192 OF 2009) [2017] UGHCCD 182 (4 September 2017)
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.