Wakilii

Michael Mueller v Ahamed Rajab (HCT-00-CC-CS 806 of 2003)

High Court · [2010] UGCOMMC 9 · 2010 Judgment for Plaintiff — General Damages Awarded AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract and recovery of special and general damages
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff for general damages, interest on the partial consent judgment sum, interest on general damages, and costs

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 an agreement existed between the plaintiff and defendant whereby the plaintiff consigned goods to the defendant for sale, with proceeds to be remitted less expenses and commission. The defendant breached the agreement by failing to remit proceeds. The plaintiff proved the existence and breach of contract but failed to prove the claimed price of shs55,000 per tyre, having only established shs10,000 per tyre in the partial consent judgment. The plaintiff was awarded general damages of shs3,475,000 for breach of contract and interest at the court rate on the partial consent judgment sum and on general damages.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff for general damages, interest on the partial consent judgment sum, interest on general damages, and costs

Facts

The plaintiff, a Swiss businessman, consigned goods including 1,393 packages containing tyres and computers to the defendant, a businessman in Arua, on 18 December 2002 for sale. The terms required the defendant to sell the goods until April 2003, receive 15% commission after deducting expenses, and remit the balance to the plaintiff. The defendant failed to remit any proceeds. On 30 June 2003, the plaintiff's agent and the defendant concluded a supplementary agreement whereby the defendant agreed to return 725 tyres and pay shs550,000 for a computer, less the defendant's commission of US$2,200. The defendant failed to perform this agreement. By partial consent judgment dated 18 January 2006, the defendant agreed to pay shs6,950,000 for 695 tyres at shs10,000 each plus shs550,000 for the computer, less a deduction of shs3,960,000, and to deliver 30 tyres within 7 days. The defendant failed to deliver the 30 tyres. The plaintiff then claimed additional special damages for the balance of the tyres at shs55,000 per tyre, general damages, interest, and costs.

Issues

  1. Whether there was an agreement between the parties
  2. What were the terms of the agreement
  3. Whether the defendant received any consignment of goods from the plaintiff
  4. Whether there was any breach of the agreement
  5. Whether the defendant remitted the proceeds from the goods consigned
  6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought

Orders

  • General damages awarded in the sum of shs3,475,000
  • Interest at the court rate awarded on the partial consent judgment decretal sum of shs7,500,000 from the date of the partial consent judgment until payment in full
  • Interest at the court rate awarded on the general damages from the date of this judgment until payment in full
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Standard of Proof in Civil Cases
In civil cases, the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the question or issue in dispute, and the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities, not as high as in criminal cases.
Contract Law — Proof of Contract — Requirements
To prove the existence of a contract, a plaintiff must show that there was an offer by one party, acceptance of such offer by the other party, and existence of consideration for the performance of the contract. To determine the existence of a contract, the court must consider the documents tendered and the parties' conduct.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Parties Bound by Pleadings
Parties are bound by their pleadings. A party's admissions or denials in pleadings are evidence of the facts admitted or denied.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Requirement of Strict Proof
Special damages must not only be pleaded but also must be strictly proved. Where the price or value of goods is disputed, the burden of proving the claimed price lies on the plaintiff, and failure to discharge this burden on a balance of probabilities results in the claim for special damages failing.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages for Breach of Contract — Compensatory Nature
General damages for breach of contract are compensatory for the loss suffered and inconveniences caused to the aggrieved party. The intention is to put the plaintiff back into the same position as he would have been in had the contract been performed, and not a better position. Where a plaintiff cannot prove actual damage or loss for breach of contract, the plaintiff is only entitled to nominal damages.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Court's Discretion
Under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court has discretion to award interest on the principal sum from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, and from the date of the decree to the date of payment. Interest prior to the filing of the suit may be awarded only where there was an agreement on interest between the parties which is sought to be enforced. In the absence of such an agreement, a prayer for interest from the date of breach fails.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (9)

  • Sebuliba v Cooperative Bank (1982) HCB 129
  • Miller v Ministry of Pensions [1972] 2 All ER 372
  • JK Patel v Spear Motors Ltd (SCCA No. 49 of 1992)
  • Nairobi City Council v Thabit Enterprises Ltd (1995-1998) 2 EA 231
  • Galaxy Paint Co Ltd v Falcon Grounds Ltd [2000] EA 385
  • KCC v Nakaye [1972] EA 446
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
  • John Kawanga & Another v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (2002-2004) UCL 262
  • Yousuf Abadallah Gulamhusein v The French Somaliland Shipping Co Ltd [1959] EA 25

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Michael Mueller v Ahamed Rajab (HCT-00-CC-CS 806 of 2003) [2010] UGCommC 9 (25 March 2010)
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.