Wakilii

M S Fast Forwarding & Shipping Co. Ltd v M S China Wu Yi Co. Ltd (Civil Suit No. 0415 of 2021)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 79 · 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 proceeding ex parte after defendant failed to file defence
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of Plaintiff for breach of contract with award of unpaid invoices, general damages, interest, and costs

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 that a contract existed between the parties established by email correspondences appointing plaintiff as clearing and forwarding agent. Defendant breached the contract by failing to pay for services rendered. Plaintiff awarded USD $183,150 in unpaid invoices, general damages of UGX 50,000,000, interest at 9% per annum on unpaid invoices from date of suit filing, and interest at 18% per annum on general damages from date of judgment. Default judgment procedure under Order 9 Rules 5 and 6 CPR was inapplicable to claims for unliquidated damages; correct procedure is Order 9 Rule 10 or 11(2).

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of Plaintiff for breach of contract with award of unpaid invoices, general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

Defendant appointed Plaintiff as clearing and forwarding agent to clear two consignments from Mombasa to Uganda. Plaintiff subcontracted Multiple Solutions Ltd which transported consignments to Kakumiro. Services were rendered between 9 May 2019 and 15 May 2019. Defendant failed to pay for services amounting to USD $185,000. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract, special damages, general damages, interest, and costs. Defendant failed to file written statement of defence despite being served. Initial default judgment under Order 9 Rules 5 and 6 CPR was set aside suo moto by court as incorrect procedure for unliquidated damages claim. Fresh summons issued and defendant served on 7 July 2023. Matter proceeded ex parte. Plaintiff adduced documentary evidence including bills of lading, email correspondences, delivery notices, commercial invoices, and demand notices. One invoice for USD $1,850 excluded as issued to different company.

Issues

  1. Whether there was breach of contract by the Defendant?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Defendant pays the Plaintiff's unpaid invoices amounting to USD $183,150.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded general damages to the tune of UGX 50,000,000.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded interest at a rate of 9% per annum on the USD $183,150 from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded interest on the general damages at a rate of 18% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded the costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Formation — Writing Requirement — Email Correspondences
Under Section 10(5) of the Contracts Act, contracts above twenty-five cents must be in writing, but the writing envisaged does not require a formal written contract. The requirement is satisfied by any writing that reasonably identifies the subject matter, indicates that a contract exists, and states with reasonable certainty the material terms. Email correspondences appointing a clearing and forwarding agent constitute sufficient writing to establish a valid contract.
Default Judgment — Liquidated versus Unliquidated Claims — Applicable Rules
Order 9 Rules 5 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which provide for default judgment, apply only to liquidated demands. Where a plaintiff's claim includes unliquidated damages, the applicable procedure is Order 9 Rule 10 which allows the suit to proceed as if a defence has been filed, or Order 9 Rule 11(2) which allows the matter to proceed ex parte. A default judgment entered under the wrong rule may be set aside suo moto by the court.
General Damages — Assessment in Commercial Cases — Breach of Contract
In assessing quantum of general damages for breach of contract, courts are guided by the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience suffered, and the nature and extent of the breach. A claimant who suffers inconvenience from breach by the defendant must be put in the position before the suffering of damage. Where a party has been denied use of money owed since 2019, general damages are appropriate compensation for the inconvenience, suffering, and pain caused.
Interest Awards — Rates — Commercial Cases — Restitutio in Integrum
Under Section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, courts may award three types of interest: interest on the principal sum for any period prior to filing suit, interest from filing to decree, and interest from decree to payment. The purpose of interest is restitutio in integrum to restore the plaintiff to the position had the injury not occurred. In commercial cases, courts should take into account inflation and currency depreciation, awarding such rate as would not neglect the prevailing economic value of money while insulating against further economic vagaries.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (12)

  • Dembe Trading Enterprises Ltd v Uganda Confidential Ltd (HCCS No. 612 of 2006)
  • Premier Commodities (U) Ltd v Kiir Services & Construction Co. Limited (HCCS No. 0126 of 2019)
  • Takiya Kashwahiri & Anor v Kajungu Dennis (CACA No. 85 of 2011)
  • Bank of Africa Limited v Ssuuna Fred (HCCS No. 1036 of 2023)
  • Semakula Kayinda Solomon v Auger Revival Ministries Ltd (HCCS No. 0880 of 2020)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (SCCA No. 17 of 1992)
  • Lwanga v Centenary Bank [1999] EA 175
  • Riches v Westminster Bank Ltd [1947] 1 All ER 469
  • Tate & Lyle Food and Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council [1981] 3 All ER 716
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Ltd (HCCS No. 234 of 2011)
  • Uganda Development v Muganga Constructions [1981] HCB 35

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.

M S Fast Forwarding & Shipping Co. Ltd v M S China Wu Yi Co. Ltd (Civil Suit No. 0415 of 2021) [2025] UGCommC 79 (12 March 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.