Wakilii

Manegule v Karemere (Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2019)

High Court · [2021] UGHCLD 31 · 2021 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment dismissing suit for recovery of land and breach of contract
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent; trial court judgment dismissing the suit upheld

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 dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not denied a fair hearing as he chose to call only one witness and closed his case without testifying. The trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence and correctly found that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving breach of contract, particularly where the appellant himself did not testify despite the respondent's defence that further payments had been made. The doctrine of estoppel precluded the appellant from asserting strict compliance with the time clause after he had waived it by continuing to demand payment over several years.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent; trial court judgment dismissing the suit upheld

Facts

The appellant sold land to the respondent in 2008 for UGX 27,000,000. The respondent paid UGX 10,000,000 upon execution of the agreement. The contract required payment of the balance of UGX 17,000,000 by 13 June 2008 if the certificate of title was ready, or UGX 7,000,000 if it was not ready, with the remaining UGX 10,000,000 payable when the title became available. The appellant sued for recovery of land, eviction, and refund of UGX 10,000,000, claiming the respondent breached the contract by failing to pay the balance despite taking possession. The respondent claimed he made further payments in instalments totalling UGX 8,900,000, leaving a balance of UGX 8,100,000, which the appellant acknowledged in writing in 2013. The respondent stated he was ready to pay the balance upon receiving the certificate of title. The trial magistrate dismissed the suit, finding the appellant failed to prove breach of contract. The appellant appealed on four grounds.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant was denied the right to a fair hearing by not being given an opportunity to testify.
  2. Whether the trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence on record.
  3. Whether the respondent breached the terms of the land sale agreement.
  4. Whether one witness was sufficient to establish the appellant's case.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Trial court's findings upheld.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Right to Fair Hearing — Party's Choice Not to Testify
A party's right to a fair hearing is not violated where the party chooses to call a limited number of witnesses and closes his case without testifying. The court's duty is to receive evidence tendered in accordance with law; the right to produce evidence rests with the parties. A party who excludes himself from testifying cannot later fault the trial court for not insisting he testify.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Failure to Call Material Witness
Where a party fails to call particular evidence within his power, particularly his own testimony when aware of the opposing party's defence, the court may presume under section 113 of the Evidence Act that such evidence if produced would be unfavourable or adverse to the interest of the party withholding it.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Waiver of Time Clause by Conduct
Where a party by his declaration, act or omission intentionally causes the other to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, he is estopped from denying the truthfulness of that thing. A party who continues to demand payment over several years after the contractual payment date has passed is deemed to have waived strict compliance with the time clause and cannot later assert breach based on failure to pay on the specified date.
Evidence — Quality versus Quantity of Evidence — Sufficiency of Single Witness
While section 133 of the Evidence Act requires no particular number of witnesses to prove a fact, the circumstances of a case may require more than one witness. Evidence is not to be counted but weighed; it is not the quantity but the quality that matters. Where the quality of evidence from a single witness is deficient and requires supplementation, such evidence may be insufficient to discharge the burden of proof.
Evidence — Hearsay — Witness Lacking Personal Knowledge
Evidence from a witness who shows ignorance or lacks personal knowledge of material facts constitutes irrelevant hearsay under section 30 of the Evidence Act. Where a witness denies awareness of alleged payments, his evidence cannot rebut the opposing party's direct testimony corroborated by multiple witnesses.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (9)

  • Mpungu & Sons Transporters Ltd v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2001)
  • Nsubuga v Kavuma (1978) HCB 307
  • Yakobo & Others v Crensesio Mukasa (Court of Appeal No. 17 of 2014)
  • Muluta Joseph versus Katama Sylivano S.C.C.A. No.11 of 119
  • United Building Services Ltd v Yafesi Muzira t/a Quickest Builders & Co Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 154 of 2005)
  • Shamim Boutique Ltd v Noratan Bhatta (High Court Civil Suit No. 411 of 1998)
  • Pan African Insurance Company (U) Ltd v International Air Transport Association (High Court Civil Suit No. 667 of 2003)
  • Osine s/o Rayako v R (High Court Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1963)
  • Uganda v Kavuma Ismail (High Court Criminal Case No. 819 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Manegule_v_Karemere_(Civil_Appeal_No._93_of_2019)_[2021]_UGHCLD_31_(4_March_2021)
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.