Wakilii

Majari Investments Limited v Betimo General Supplies Limited & Another (Civil Suit 562 of 2020)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 347 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money had and received
Decision
1st Defendant liable to pay USD 147,929 plus damages and interest; suit dismissed against 2nd Defendant

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 claim for money had and received is an equitable remedy based on restitution and unjust enrichment, not breach of contract. Non-compliance with the formal writing requirement in Contracts Act s.10(5) does not render such a claim incompetent. The plaintiff established that it transferred USD 147,929 to the first defendant's supplier on the first defendant's behalf, which the first defendant received and converted without refunding. The plaintiff is entitled to recover USD 147,929 from the first defendant as money had and received, with general damages, punitive damages, and interest. The claim against the second defendant personally failed.

Outcome

1st Defendant liable to pay USD 147,929 plus damages and interest; suit dismissed against 2nd Defendant

Facts

In February 2018, the second defendant, a director of the first defendant and a friend of the plaintiff's director, proposed that the plaintiff pay for a container of wines from the first defendant's UAE supplier, Truebell. The second defendant represented that the consignment would belong to the plaintiff and would be sold to recoup the plaintiff's money, while the first defendant would benefit from a credit line. On 26 March 2018, the plaintiff remitted USD 147,929 directly to Truebell for an invoice addressed to the first defendant. In May 2018, the consignment arrived in Uganda. When the plaintiff's director visited Uganda in July 2018, the consignment was not found in the first defendant's possession. The second defendant admitted selling the entire consignment and undertook to refund the plaintiff's money within two months but failed to do so despite repeated demands.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff's suit against the Defendants is incompetent for offending Section 10(5) of the Contracts Act Cap 284.
  2. Whether the Plaintiff departed from its pleadings at the trial.
  3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of USD 154,929 being money had and received from the Defendants.
  4. What reliefs are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant.
  • 1st Defendant to pay USD 147,929 being money had and received to the Plaintiff.
  • 1st Defendant to pay UGX 40,000,000 being general damages to the Plaintiff.
  • 1st Defendant to pay UGX 20,000,000 being punitive damages to the Plaintiff.
  • 1st Defendant to pay interest on USD 147,929 at 18% per annum from 26 March 2018 until full payment.
  • 1st Defendant to pay interest on general damages at 15% per annum from date of judgment until full payment.
  • 1st Defendant to pay interest on punitive damages at 15% per annum from date of judgment until full payment.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formal Requirements — Contracts Act s.10(5) — Effect of Non-Compliance on Restitutionary Claims
The requirement under Contracts Act s.10(5) that contracts exceeding twenty-five currency points must be in writing does not render a claim for money had and received incompetent where the underlying contract is void or unenforceable. A claim for money had and received is an equitable remedy based on restitution and unjust enrichment, not on the enforcement of a contract.
Contract Law — Restitution — Money Had and Received — Legal Basis and Requirements
To succeed in a claim for money had and received, a plaintiff must prove that: (i) the defendant has been enriched by the receipt of a benefit; (ii) this enrichment is at the expense of the plaintiff; and (iii) the retention of the enrichment is unjust. Such a claim is grounded in equity and the doctrine against unjust enrichment.
Contract Law — Void Contracts — Recovery of Benefits — Contracts Act s.54(1)
Where a contract is void ab initio or becomes void after formation, Section 54(1) of the Contracts Act requires that any person who received advantage under that contract is bound to restore it or to pay compensation for it to the person from whom the advantage was received. This statutory provision encapsulates the common law rule against unjust enrichment.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Departure from Pleadings — Necessity to Plead Legal Theories
A party need not plead the legal implications or theories arising from facts in the pleadings. According to Order 7 Rule 1(f) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a plaint should contain the facts constituting the cause of action, not the legal arguments arising from those facts. It is sufficient to plead the facts which justify the claim; the legal significance of those facts is for the court to determine after proof at trial.
Contract Law — Agency — Implied Agency — Payment to Principal's Agent
Where a supplier receives payment from a third party with the knowledge and consent of the principal debtor, and the payment is made in respect of an invoice addressed to the principal, the supplier acts as the apparent agent of the principal in receiving that payment. He who acts through another acts himself.
Evidence — Credibility of Witnesses — Assessment of Demeanour — Evasive Testimony
Where a witness is visibly evasive, non-committal in answers, and denies inconvenient parts of their own party's evidence, the court may attach little evidential weight to that witness's testimony. An evasive witness who deliberately distorts and misrepresents facts in an attempt to mislead the court demonstrates conduct indicative of untruthfulness.
Damages & Quantum — Punitive Damages — Grounds for Award — Egregious Conduct
Punitive damages may be awarded where the defendant's conduct was egregious, high-handed, vindictive, or malicious. Such damages serve not merely to compensate the plaintiff but to punish the defendant and mark the court's displeasure at outrageous conduct. The award warns society that similar conduct will always be an affront to the court's sense of diligence and decency.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (15)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Karangwa Joseph v Kulanju Willy (High Court Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2016)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Ssenyonjo Moses & Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2015)
  • Jamba Soita Ali v David Salaam (High Court Civil Suit No. 400 of 2005)
  • Formula Feeds Ltd & 3 Others v KCB Bank Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2020)
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)
  • Post Bank (Uganda) Ltd v Henry Ssali (High Court Civil Suit No. 729 of 2016)
  • Mahabir Kishore & Madhya Pradesh 1990 AIR 313
  • Zura Mohammed Nasim v Latim Andrew (High Court Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2017)
  • Namatovu Margaret v Tom Kaaya & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 432 of 2005)
  • Opia Moses v Chukia Lumago Roselyn & 5 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 22 of 2013)
  • Daniel Oboth v The New Vision Printing and Publishing Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1990)
  • Ahmed El Termewy v Hassan Awdi & 3 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 95 of 2012)
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 224 of 2011)
  • Kwizera Eddie v Attorney General (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 01 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Majari Investments Limited v Betimo General Supplies Limited & Another (Civil Suit 562 of 2020) [2024] UGCommC 347 (31 December 2024)
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.