Wakilii

Miraj v Salvation Army (Civil Suit 713 of 2015)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 180 · 2022 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 and refund of purchase monies
Decision
Judgment for the Plaintiff; Defendant ordered to refund purchase monies plus stamp duty and bank charges, and to pay general damages

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 land purchase agreement by failing to deliver vacant possession as required under the contract. The Defendant was ordered to refund the purchase monies paid by the Plaintiff (UGX 435,100,000), plus stamp duty and bank charges (UGX 6,012,000), and to pay general damages of UGX 100,000,000 for deprivation of use and inconvenience. The Defendant's counterclaim failed as the Plaintiff was not obliged to pay the balance until vacant possession was delivered.

Outcome

Judgment for the Plaintiff; Defendant ordered to refund purchase monies plus stamp duty and bank charges, and to pay general damages

Facts

The Plaintiff and Defendant entered a land sale agreement on 27 November 2012 for land at Bombo Road at UGX 600,000,000 payable in instalments. The Plaintiff paid UGX 300,000,000 at execution with the balance payable upon delivery of vacant possession by 12 December 2012. The Defendant failed to deliver vacant possession. By a Memorandum of Understanding dated 23 October 2013, the Plaintiff advanced an additional UGX 135,000,000 to assist the Defendant in evicting occupants (the Abalema Group). The Plaintiff further paid UGX 600,000 towards eviction and UGX 6,012,000 in stamp duty and bank charges. In total, the Plaintiff paid UGX 435,100,000 plus the stamp duty fees. The Defendant never delivered vacant possession despite the additional payments. The Defendant claimed that vacant possession had been given to the Plaintiff's father while the Plaintiff was abroad, but this was contradicted by evidence including the Plaintiff's passport showing he was in the country at the material time.

Issues

  1. Whether there has been any breach of the purchase agreement and by whom?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Defendant is ordered to refund UGX 435,100,000 being monies paid towards the purchase price.
  • The Defendant is ordered to refund UGX 6,000,000 in stamp duty fees and UGX 12,000 in bank charges.
  • The Defendant is ordered to pay general damages of UGX 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff.
  • Interest is awarded on the refund amounts at court rate from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Obligation to Deliver Vacant Possession
A vendor under a land sale agreement who fails to deliver vacant possession as stipulated in the contract is in breach of that contract, and the purchaser is not obliged to pay the balance of the purchase price until the vendor's obligation is fulfilled.
Contract Law — Variation of Contracts — Effect on Original Terms
A subsequent Memorandum of Understanding that requires further payments to assist in evicting occupants does not operate as a variation discharging the vendor's original obligation to deliver vacant possession under the purchase agreement where the memorandum does not expressly alter or extinguish that obligation.
Evidence — Inconsistencies in Testimony — Effect on Credibility
Grave inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses, especially on matters going to the root of the case such as when payment was made or when vacant possession was delivered, will result in the rejection of that evidence if not satisfactorily explained.
Damages & Quantum — Restitution and Refund — Failed Land Purchase
Where a vendor fails to deliver vacant possession under a land sale agreement, the purchaser is entitled to refund of all monies paid towards the purchase price, including amounts advanced to assist the vendor in evicting occupants, and may also recover expenses incurred in anticipation of the contract's performance, such as stamp duty fees.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Contract Breach — Deprivation of Use and Benefit
A purchaser deprived of the use and benefit of land for a prolonged period due to the vendor's breach is entitled to general damages to compensate for the inconvenience and damage suffered, placing the innocent party in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed.
Damages & Quantum — Punitive Damages — Applicability
Punitive or exemplary damages are awarded only in cases of oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by servants of government, or where the defendant's conduct was calculated to make a profit exceeding compensation payable to the plaintiff. Absent such aggravating circumstances, punitive damages will be refused even where breach of contract is established.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (9)

  • Dr. Dennis Rwamafa v Attorney General [1992] KALR 21
  • Mcriam Naigaga v Orient Bank Ltd (Civil Suit No. 464 of 2013)
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank & 5 others [2004] HCB vol 29
  • Rookes v Barnard [1964] All ER 410
  • KCC v Nakaye (1972) EA 496
  • Kanji Naran Patel v Noor Esso and another [1965] 1 EA 484
  • Storms v Hutchinson [1939] 1 KB 249
  • British Transport Commission v Gourley [1956] AC 185
  • Aziz Kalungi Kasujja v Naumi Rebekanya Nakakande (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 63 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Miraj v Salvation Army (Civil Suit 713 of 2015) [2022] UGCommC 180 (19 December 2022)
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.