Wakilii

Luzze Robert Kamya v Development Infrastructure (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 8 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 858 · 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 and recovery of deposit
Decision
Plaintiff awarded refund of deposit, general damages, and interest. Claims for ownership declaration and specific performance dismissed.

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

The court held that WhatsApp messages and part payment of a deposit constituted a valid written contract under the Contracts Act for the purchase of a shop unit. The defendant breached the contract by failing to provide a sale agreement after receiving the deposit. The plaintiff was entitled to a refund of UGX 15,000,000 and general damages of UGX 10,000,000, but not to specific performance or a declaration of ownership.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded refund of deposit, general damages, and interest. Claims for ownership declaration and specific performance dismissed.

Facts

In October 2021, the plaintiff was informed by the defendant's agent about condominium units at Arua Hill Business Park, each priced at UGX 97,000,000. The plaintiff selected Shop No. 20 and on 19 October 2021 paid a deposit of UGX 15,000,000 via bank transfer. The defendant's accountant confirmed receipt via WhatsApp and promised to prepare a contract. The defendant repeatedly delayed providing the contract, then terminated the engagement by email, claiming the plaintiff had failed to pay 20% of the purchase price. The plaintiff sued for recovery of the deposit, a declaration of ownership, specific performance, general damages, interest and costs. The defendant admitted receiving the money but denied the existence of a contract.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant
  2. Whether there was a breach of the said contract
  3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought

Orders

  • The UGX 15,000,000 paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant amounted to part performance of the contract.
  • The Defendant shall refund UGX 15,000,000 to the Plaintiff.
  • The declaration that the Plaintiff is the rightful owner of shop no. 20 is denied.
  • The order for specific performance is denied.
  • General damages of UGX 10,000,000 are awarded to the Plaintiff.
  • Interest at 18% per annum on UGX 15,000,000 from the date of filing suit until the date of judgment is awarded.
  • The Plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit.
  • Interest on costs is denied.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation — Writing Requirement — WhatsApp Messages as Written Contract
Under the Contracts Act, the writing requirement for contracts above twenty-five currency points can be satisfied by WhatsApp messages and related electronic communications where they reasonably identify the subject matter, indicate that a contract exists, and state the material terms with reasonable certainty.
Contract Law — Formation — Implied Terms — Obligations from Communications and Conduct
Where the express terms of a contract are not fully documented, the court may impute the obligations from the communications between the parties as a whole and from the evidence of their conduct, including part payment of the purchase price and promises to provide a formal agreement.
Contract Law — Breach — Introduction of New Terms After Part Performance
A party breaches a contract where, after accepting part payment of the purchase price and promising to provide a sale agreement, it introduces new conditions not previously communicated and refuses to complete the transaction on the original terms.
Contract Law — Remedies — Specific Performance — Hardship and Changed Circumstances
Specific performance will be denied under section 63(2) of the Contracts Act where granting the order would create hardship for the defendant out of proportion to the benefit to the claimant, including where property values have appreciated significantly since the original agreement and enforcing the old price would confer an excessive and unreasonable benefit on the claimant.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (13)

  • Shalom Catering Services Ltd v Mariye (Civil Suit No. 131 of 2019)
  • Kiraza Paul v Ssekeba Musa (Civil Appeal No. 58 of 2012)
  • Greenboat Entertainment Ltd v City Council of Kampala (HCCS No. 580 of 2003)
  • Semakula Kayinda Solomon v Auger Revival Ministries Ltd (HCCS No. 880 of 2020)
  • Musoke Kitenda v Roko Construction Ltd (HCMA No. 1240 of 2020)
  • Biyinzika Enterprises (Farmers) Ltd v Magidu Segane (High Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2015)
  • Ewadra Emmanuel v Spencon Services Ltd (HCCS No. 22 of 2015)
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Hajji Yahaya Sekalega T/A Sekalega Enterprises (HCCS No. 185 of 2009)
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 542 of 2006)
  • May and Butcher v R [1934] 2 KB 17
  • Protea Chemical East Africa Ltd v KAC Chemical and Paints (U) Ltd (HCCS No. 470 of 2016)
  • UCB v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Wagagai Mining (U) Ltd & 2 Others v Freight Sendy Limited & 3 Others (Consolidated Civil Suit No. 895 of 2020)

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.

Luzze Robert Kamya v Development Infrastructure (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 8 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 858 (25 July 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.