Wakilii

Mamba Point Limited v Domus Aurea Limited (HCT-00-CC-CS-0638-2004) (HCT-00-CC-CS-0638-2004)

High Court · [2008] UGHC 139 · 2008 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 with counterclaim
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with general damages, interest and costs; counterclaim dismissed with costs to the plaintiff

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 court held that the defendant breached the contracts for supply of doors, windows, furniture and fittings by failing to meet agreed time frames, delivering defective materials, and failing to deliver remaining items. The defendant terminated the contract by written notice in February 2003. The plaintiff was awarded general damages of Shs.10,000,000 with interest at 22% per annum from judgment. The claim for special damages failed for lack of strict proof. The defendant's counterclaim for Shs.130,063,434 was dismissed for failure to prove indebtedness.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with general damages, interest and costs; counterclaim dismissed with costs to the plaintiff

Facts

The parties entered into contracts on 17 December 2001 for the defendant to supply doors, windows, door frames, window frames, furniture and fittings to the plaintiff. The plaintiff made advance payments totaling Shs.48,400,000. On 20 November 2002, the parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding setting out a scheme for completion with a total cost of Shs.77,369,461 and weekly time frames, with the balance to be assessed and paid within six months of completion. The defendant supplied all window and door frames, but the plaintiff discovered that the majority had warped. Performance was sluggish and behind schedule. The defendant failed to comply with the weekly review and payment mechanism set out in the Memorandum. An architect's report identified deviations from designs and specifications. On 21 February 2003, the plaintiff wrote pointing out breaches. The defendant responded on 4 March 2003 stating it could not and wished not to complete the work. The defendant submitted an updated proforma invoice increasing the total to Shs.152,532,850, which the plaintiff rejected. The defendant counterclaimed for Shs.130,063,434.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant breached the contracts.
  2. Whether the contracts were terminated and by whom.
  3. Whether the parties are entitled to the reliefs claimed in the plaint and counterclaim.

Orders

  • General damages awarded to the plaintiff in the sum of Shs.10,000,000.
  • Interest on general damages at 22% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Counterclaim dismissed.
  • Costs of the counterclaim awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Breach of Contract — Performance — Time Frames and Defective Work
Where parties revise a contract by setting time frames and quality standards that were absent in the original agreement, failure by one party to comply with the revised terms constitutes breach of contract, and that party cannot subsequently revert to the original agreement which lacked time frames.
Extrinsic Evidence — Written Contracts — Parol Evidence Rule
Where a contract has been reduced to writing, neither party can rely on evidence of terms alleged to have been agreed which is extrinsic to the document, the rationale being the promotion of certainty by holding that parties who reduced a contract to writing should be bound by the writing alone.
Frustration — Self-Induced Impossibility — Breach
Subsequent impossibility or frustration brought about by the conduct of one of the parties will as a rule amount to a breach of contract by that party and will not excuse non-performance, though it may release the other party from the obligation to perform.
Special Damages — Pleading and Proof — Total Failure of Consideration
Special damages must be pleaded and strictly proved. Where a party seeks to recover advance payments on the ground of total failure of consideration but there is evidence that the other party performed some obligations, though to the dissatisfaction of the plaintiff, the claim for recovery of the entire amount as special damages will fail.
General Damages — Breach of Contract — Compensatory Principle
General damages in breach of contract are awarded to compensate the plaintiff, not to punish the defendant. They are assessed by the opinion and judgment of a reasonable person where no precise measure of assessment exists.
Termination — Repudiation — Written Notice
Where one party to a contract writes to the other stating that it cannot and wishes not to complete the work, such written notice constitutes termination of the contract by that party.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mamba Point Limited v Domus Aurea Limited (HCT-00-CC-CS-0638-2004) (HCT-00-CC-CS-0638-2004) [2008] UGHC 139 (21 December 2008)
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.