Wakilii

MAAD Limited v Dei Group of Companies International Limited & 2 Others (Civil Suit 312 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 288 · 2023 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 heard ex parte after defendants failed to attend
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff against 1st defendant for contractual debt and general damages; 2nd and 3rd defendants not held personally liable

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 held that the first defendant company was liable for breach of an advertising services contract and ordered payment of UGX 419,708,268 in outstanding invoices plus UGX 100,000,000 in general damages. The court declined to pierce the corporate veil to hold the second and third defendants (directors) personally liable, finding no evidence of fraud or abuse justifying such action.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff against 1st defendant for contractual debt and general damages; 2nd and 3rd defendants not held personally liable

Facts

MAAD Limited, an advertising agency, contracted with Dei Group of Companies International Limited on 31 October 2019 to provide advertising and marketing communication services from 1 November 2019 to 30 April 2020. The contract provided for monthly retainer fees and reimbursement of third-party costs. The plaintiff rendered services and submitted 23 invoices totalling UGX 605,625,973. The 1st defendant paid only 7 invoices (UGX 185,918,145) by December 2019, leaving 16 invoices worth UGX 419,707,828 unpaid. Despite repeated follow-ups and correspondence, the defendants refused to pay. The plaintiff alleged the 2nd and 3rd defendants, as directors, abused their positions to avoid payment. When the matter came for hearing on 13 April 2023, the defendants and their counsel failed to attend despite notice, and the court allowed the plaintiff to proceed ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants are liable to the plaintiff to a tune of UGX 419,708,268
  2. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • The 1st defendant to pay UGX 419,708,268 to the plaintiff.
  • The 1st defendant to pay general damages of UGX 100,000,000 to the plaintiff.
  • Interest at court rate awarded on both sums from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The 1st defendant to pay costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
  • No personal liability imposed on the 2nd and 3rd defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Enforcement of Payment Obligations
Where parties have freely entered into a contract and one party has performed its obligations but the other has failed to pay as agreed, the court will enforce the contract and order payment of the outstanding sums.
Company Law — Corporate Veil — Lifting the Corporate Veil — Requirements
The corporate veil ought to be lifted only where there is proof of involvement of directors in fraud or abuse of the corporate form. In the absence of proceedings to lift the corporate veil and evidence of fraud, directors cannot be held personally liable for the debts of the company.
Contract Law — Damages — General Damages for Breach of Contract
General damages for breach of contract are the direct, natural, or probable consequence of the acts complained of. Where a plaintiff demonstrates financial loss, loss of creditworthiness, and reputational damage resulting from the defendant's breach, general damages will be awarded.
Contract Law — Interest — Contractual Interest versus Court Rate
Where parties have not agreed on a specific interest rate in their contract, the court will not award interest at a rate claimed by the plaintiff but will instead award interest at the court rate from the date of judgment until payment in full.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Proceedings — Failure to Attend Hearing
Where a defendant fails to attend court for a scheduled hearing despite proper notice, the court may allow the plaintiff to proceed ex parte under Order 9 rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the plaintiff's evidence will remain unchallenged.

Cases cited (1)

  • HL Bolton Co. v TJ Graham and Sons [1956] 3 All ER 624

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

MAAD Limited v Dei Group of Companies International Limited & 2 Others (Civil Suit 312 of 2021) [2023] UGCommC 288 (11 May 2023)
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.