Wakilii

M-s Meridian Tobacco Company Ltd v M-s Ssejjemba Investments Ltd (Civil Appeal 44 of 2023)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 183 · 2026 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment awarding damages for breach of contract
Decision
Suit dismissed; appellant not liable for claimed outstanding balance

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

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court's judgment. The court held that while a contract existed between the parties based on prior dealings, the respondent failed to prove actual delivery and receipt of the specific goods claimed. The transactional account statement relied upon by the trial court was unilaterally generated, not independently verified, and not supported by signed delivery notes or adequate proof of dispatch and receipt. Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved; unsigned delivery notes over a three-year period without corroborating evidence of actual delivery were insufficient to discharge the burden of proof.

Outcome

Suit dismissed; appellant not liable for claimed outstanding balance

Facts

The respondent sued the appellant for breach of contract and recovery of UGX 17,184,970 as outstanding balance for goods allegedly supplied between August 2014 and February 2017. The respondent claimed an oral contract existed whereby it supplied spare parts to the appellant following a transfer of operations from Kampala to Arua. The arrangement was allegedly made through one Mr. Kanja representing the appellant. The respondent produced Local Purchase Orders, tax invoices, delivery notes, and a transactional account statement. The appellant denied the contract, denied Mr. Kanja's authority to bind the company, and disputed delivery of the goods. The trial Chief Magistrate found for the respondent and awarded special damages of UGX 17,184,970, general damages of UGX 7,000,000, interest, and costs. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned trial Chief Magistrate erred in law and fact when he failed to properly analyze the evidence on record and awarded the respondent special and general damages without proof that goods were supplied and delivered to the appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment and decree of the trial Chief Magistrate set aside.
  • Suit dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal and of the proceedings in the lower court awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation — Implied Contracts — Contract Arising from Conduct of Parties
A contract may be implied from the conduct of parties where there is evidence of prior dealings, acceptance of performance, and payment for goods or services, even in the absence of a written agreement.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Evidential Burden — Shifting of Burden
Where a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case through evidence of prior dealings and payments received, the evidential burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the plaintiff's claims by showing that the alleged transactions did not occur or that the person purporting to act on behalf of the defendant lacked authority.
Evidence — Special Damages — Proof Required — Particularity and Specificity
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and specifically proved. A unilaterally generated transactional account statement not independently verified by a qualified expert and not supported by documentary proof of each transaction is insufficient to prove special damages.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Proof of Delivery — Unsigned Delivery Notes
Unsigned delivery notes, without corroborating evidence of actual dispatch and receipt such as signed receipts or independent documentation from carriers showing the recipient, are insufficient to prove delivery and receipt of goods, particularly where the practice of non-signing extends over a prolonged period.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Duty of First Appellate Court — Re-evaluation of Evidence
The duty of a first appellate court is to reconsider all material evidence before the trial court, make allowance for the fact that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses, and come to its own conclusion on the evidence, considering it in its totality rather than in isolation.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

M-s Meridian Tobacco Company Ltd v M-s Ssejjemba Investments Ltd (Civil Appeal 44 of 2023) [2026] UGHCCD 183 (10 June 2026)
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.