Mubiru Robert T A Mr Motors v Naava Harriet (Civil Suit No. 1015 of 2020)

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.

Holding

The court held that a sale of goods agreement is valid and enforceable where the seller did not own the goods at the time of sale but the original owner acquiesced to the sale and was subsequently paid in full. The defendant's defence of misrepresentation failed where she had notice that the vehicle was registered in another person's name but nonetheless entered the contract. The plaintiff was entitled to recover the outstanding purchase price of UGX 159,800,000 with interest at 15% per annum from the date of filing the suit.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff; Defendant ordered to pay outstanding purchase price with interest; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed

Facts

The Plaintiff sold a Toyota Prado motor vehicle registration number UBH 208R to the Defendant on 5 December 2022 for UGX 210,000,000. The Defendant paid UGX 50,200,000 and took possession of the vehicle but did not pay the balance of UGX 159,800,000. At the time of sale, the vehicle was still registered in the name of Ssekawunde Francis, from whom the Plaintiff had purchased it but not yet paid in full. Ssekawunde Francis obtained a court order to attach the vehicle in Civil Suit No. 151 of 2023 but the attachment was prevented by the Defendant's bodyguards. The Plaintiff subsequently paid Ssekawunde Francis the outstanding balance of UGX 50,000,000. Ssekawunde Francis confirmed by affidavit that he had been informed of the sale to the Defendant and had no further claim on the vehicle. The Defendant continued to use the vehicle but refused to pay the outstanding balance, claiming the contract was invalid due to the Plaintiff's lack of ownership at the time of sale.

Issues

1. Whether the arrangement entered on 5th December 2022 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the suit vehicle is legal?
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to payment of the balance outstanding on the purchase price of the suit motor vehicle?
3. Whether the Defendant is entitled to a refund of the part payment made in the purchase of the suit motor vehicle and the cost incurred in maintenance of the same, for her to return the suit motor vehicle?
4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

• The arrangement entered on 5th December 2022 between the parties is valid and legal.
• The Plaintiff is entitled to recover the outstanding balance of UGX 159,800,000 from the Defendant.
• The Defendant is not entitled to a refund of the partial payment made in the transaction nor any payment in refund of costs incurred in maintaining the vehicle.
• The Plaintiff is awarded interest of 15% on the outstanding balance from the time of filing this suit until payment in full.
• The Plaintiff is awarded the costs of this suit against the Defendant and the costs of the Counterclaim.
• The Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Civil Procedure Act s.26(2)
• Civil Procedure Act s.27
• Evidence Act s.101
• Evidence Act s.103
• Contracts Act s.32(1)
• Contracts Act s.66
• Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.3

Cases cited (18)

• Rushfar Trading Co. Ltd v Chongqing International Construction Corporation Ltd and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1702 of 2021)
• Future Stars Investments (U) Ltd v Nusuru Yusuf (Civil Suit No. 12 of 2017)
• Oscar Chess v Williams [1957] 1 All ER 325
• Jas Ventures International Limited v Atuhaire Juliet (Civil Suit No. 676 of 2021)
• Interfreight Forwarders (U) Limited v East African Development Bank [1994-1995] HCB 54
• Iddi Ouma and Another v Uganda National Roads Authority and Two Others (Civil Suit No. 159 of 2018)
• Makula International v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga (1982) HCB
• Edward Makubuya T/A M. Edward Engineering Works v Kampala City Council Kawempe Division (Civil Suit No. 59 of 2003)
• Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
• Esther Sempebwa v The Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Civil Suit No. 954 of 2004)
• Lokhandwala v Hippo Industries and Two Others (Civil Suit No. 183 of 2017)
• Meridian Africa Airlines (U) Ltd v Avmax Spares (EA) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 111 of 2017)
• Premchandra Shenoi and Another v Maximov Oleg Petrovich (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2003)
• Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995)
• Riches v Westminster Bank [1947] AC 390
• Harry Ssempa v Kamabagambire David (Civil Suit No. 408 of 2014)
• Lyamuleme David v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2013)
• Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 873

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