Wakilii

M S Coil Limited v Kifarutech Industries Pvt Limited (CIVIL SUIT NO. 842 OF 2015)

High Court · [2020] UGCOMMC 178 · 2020 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 negligence, judgment entered in default of appearance and proceeding to formal proof
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with awards of special damages, 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 a sub-contractor who supplied steel beams not conforming to contract specifications and structural drawings committed breach of contract and was negligent. The court awarded special damages for proven payments made (USD 123,098.96 and UGX 19,435,000), general damages of UGX 100,000,000, and interest at 17% per annum on both categories of damages.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with awards of special damages, general damages, interest and costs

Facts

In 2013, the plaintiff M/S Coil Ltd was engaged by Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) as head contractor for construction of a bridge at Goli Nyagak in Nebbi. On 13 July 2013, the plaintiff sub-contracted the defendant Kifarutech Industries Pvt Ltd to fabricate, supply and fix the bridge's steel structure beams (I-beams) according to UNRA's approvals, specifications and procedures. The defendant supplied beams that did not conform to specifications or structural drawings. UNRA's consultant confirmed the beams were defective and of poor quality. UNRA rejected the work. The defendant failed to rectify the defects and abandoned the project. The plaintiff had to redo the work at considerable cost by engaging other suppliers and importing replacement beams from Dubai. The defendant was served with summons including substituted service but never entered appearance. Judgment was entered in default on 17 June 2016 and the matter proceeded to formal proof.

Issues

  1. Whether there was breach of contract?
  2. Whether the Defendant was negligent?
  3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies prayed for?

Orders

  • The Defendant company breached the contract and was negligent.
  • The Defendant pays the Plaintiff special damages of USD 123,098.96 and UGX 19,435,000.
  • The Defendant pays general damages of UGX 100,000,000.
  • The Defendant pay interest at the rate of 17% per annum on special damages from the date of the cause of action until payment in full.
  • The Defendant pay interest at the rate of 17% per annum on general damages from date of delivery of judgment until payment in full.
  • The Defendant pays costs of this suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Non-performance — Supply of Defective Goods
A breach of contract occurs when a party to a contract, without lawful excuse, fails or refuses to perform the contract, performs defectively, or incapacitates himself from performing the contract. Supply of materials that do not conform to contract specifications constitutes defective performance and breach of contract.
Contract Law — Contractual Obligations — Section 31 Contracts Act 2010
Section 31 of the Contracts Act 2010 imposes obligations on parties to perform their respective promises made under a contract. Section 36 makes it mandatory to perform a promise once it appears from the nature of the case that this was the intention of the parties.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Burden of Proof — Strict Proof Required
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. A plaintiff bringing an action for damages must prove their damage; it is not enough to write down particulars and throw them at the head of the court. Proof typically requires documentary evidence such as receipts, invoices, and bank statements showing actual payments made.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Principles of Assessment — Restitutio in Integrum
General damages are awarded to put the plaintiff in the same or as near as possible the position he would otherwise be in if the wrong complained of had not been done. The court is guided by the common law doctrine of restitutio in integrum and must award damages for breach of contract with the object of compensating the plaintiff for loss.
Damages & Quantum — Interest on Damages — Commercial Disputes — Rate of 17%
Interest is not awarded as a punitive measure for having kept the plaintiff out of his money but as part of an attempt to achieve restitutio in integrum. Interest in commercial disputes should reflect the rate at which the plaintiff would have had to borrow money to supply the place of that which was withheld. The appropriate rate for commercial disputes is 17% per annum.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (9)

  • G.H Treifel 'An outline of The Law of Contract, 1984 Edition at page 264
  • Provincial Insurance Co of EA Ltd v Mordekai Mwanga Nandwa (1995-1998) EA 288
  • Dairy Development Authority v Ngarambe (HCCA No. 10 of 2011)
  • Bencdito Musisi v Attorney General (HCCS 708 of 1992)
  • Borham-Carter v Hyde Park Hotel (1948) 64 TLR
  • Hall Brothers SC Co Ltd v Young (1939) 1 KB 748
  • Dharamshl v Karan (1974) EA 41
  • Uganda Telecom v Tanzanite Corporation (2005) EA 351
  • Tate & Lyle Food and Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council [1981] 3 All ER 716

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

M S Coil Limited v Kifarutech Industries Pvt Limited (CIVIL SUIT NO. 842 OF 2015) [2020] UGCommC 178 (26 August 2020)
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.