Wakilii

Moses Ruhura v Korica (u) Ltd (HCT-00-CV-CS-0021 of 2006)

High Court · [2010] UGHC 18 · 2010 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for payment of commission balance
Decision
Plaintiff's claim dismissed for failure to prove the terms of the alleged commission agreement

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 agreement to supply current transformers was between Roko Technical Services Ltd and the Korean supplier, M/S East-West Express Company, not between the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant merely acted as a link. The plaintiff failed to prove the terms of the alleged verbal commission agreement, specifically that the agreed commission was US$29,603 rather than US$20,000. The claim for the balance of US$8,303, general damages, and interest was dismissed for failure to discharge the burden of proof under Evidence Act sections 101 and 102.

Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed for failure to prove the terms of the alleged commission agreement

Facts

The plaintiff, a freelance business developer for Roko Technical Services Ltd, claimed he assisted the defendant company in obtaining business for supply of current transformers worth US$86,130 to Roko. He alleged a verbal agreement with the defendant's managing director to pay commission of US$29,603, of which only US$21,300 was paid, leaving a balance of US$8,303. The defendant denied any direct agreement, stating it merely linked Roko with a Korean supplier, M/S East-West Express Company, who agreed to pay only US$20,000 commission, which was paid through the defendant. The commercial invoice showed the Korean company as the exporter with Roko as the importer. Payment was made directly to the Korean company's bank account in South Korea.

Issues

  1. Whether there was any agreement between the parties
  2. What were the terms of the agreement
  3. Whether the agreement, if any, was breached
  4. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim for payment of US$8,303 is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff's claim for general damages is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff's claim for interest is dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Formation — Burden of Proof — Verbal Agreement
A party alleging the existence of a verbal agreement and specific terms thereof bears the burden of proving both the agreement and its terms. Partial performance by the other party does not, on its own, establish the specific terms alleged.
Burden of Proof — Existence of Facts
Under section 101 of the Evidence Act, whoever desires a court to give judgment as to any legal right dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. Under section 102, the burden of proof lies on the person who would fail if no evidence were given on either side.
Agency and Intermediaries — Distinction Between Principal and Link
Where a party merely introduces a supplier to a purchaser and facilitates communication between them, but the commercial invoice names a third party as exporter and payment is made directly to that third party's account, the intermediary is not the supplier and is not party to the supply agreement.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (3)

  • F & G Sykes (Wessex) Ltd v Fine Fare Ltd [1967] 1 Lloyd's Rep 53
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v Tanzanite Corporation (SCCA No. 17 of 2004)
  • Hannington v Victoria Graining Co [1878] 3 QB 549

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Moses Ruhura v Korica (u) Ltd (HCT-00-CV-CS-0021 of 2006) [2010] UGHC 18 (15 February 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.