Wakilii

Mugambe v Kayita and Another (Civil Suit No. 339 of 2020)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 117 · 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, negligence, misrepresentation, and deceit; defendants filed counterclaim for breach of contract
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff against both defendants jointly and severally with damages and costs; counterclaim dismissed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 found both defendants jointly and severally liable for breach of a construction contract and negligent performance. The plaintiff had entered into a contract for finishing works on a ten-apartment block, paying UGX 320,000,000 of the agreed UGX 450,000,000, but the defendants failed to complete works within the stipulated six months and executed shoddy work with defects including cracked plaster, damaged tiles, and poorly fitted door frames. The court rejected the plaintiff's claim for misrepresentation but awarded UGX 27,000,000 in special damages and UGX 225,000,000 in general damages, dismissing the defendants' counterclaim. The 1st defendant was held personally liable as he executed the contract in his personal capacity.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff against both defendants jointly and severally with damages and costs; counterclaim dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff entered into a construction agreement with the defendants on 3 July 2019 for completion of finishing works on a ten-apartment block in Bweyogerere for UGX 450,000,000, to be completed within six months. By 12 November 2019, the plaintiff had paid UGX 320,000,000, but the works were never completed. The plaintiff alleged the defendants performed shoddy work including cracked wall plaster, peeling plaster, cracked ceilings, defective door frames, and damaged floor tiles. Technical audit reports confirmed the defective nature of the work. The defendants claimed the plaintiff breached by failing to provide structural drawings, supervising personnel, and making wrongful demands for alterations. The 2nd defendant filed a counterclaim for UGX 171,741,600 for unpaid balance and costs outside the contract. The court conducted a locus visit and observed glaring defects in the defendants' work.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a breach of contract, if so by whom?
  2. Whether the defendants negligently performed the construction works?
  3. Whether the 1st defendant misrepresented the 2nd defendant's technical capacity and capability to perform the contract?
  4. What remedies are available?

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff against both defendants jointly and severally.
  • Special damages of UGX 27,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • General damages of UGX 225,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Interest of 15% per annum on special damages from the date of filing the suit.
  • Interest of 20% per annum on general damages from the date of judgment.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
  • The defendants' counterclaim dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Time for Performance — Extension of Time
Where a written construction contract stipulates a specific time period for performance and provides that any extension requires written agreement of the parties, oral agreement or acquiescence cannot constitute valid variation of the contractual term. Any alteration or variation of terms of a written contract must be in writing to avoid oral evidence contradicting the written agreement.
Contract Law — Interpretation — Sanctity of Contract — Pacta Sunt Servanda
Courts are bound by the terms of a contract freely entered into by parties and lack power to add to or subtract from those terms. The principle of sanctity of contract (pacta sunt servanda) requires that non-fraudulent agreements of parties must be observed, and parties enjoy freedom to contract on their own terms provided the same is lawful.
Tort Law — Negligence — Concurrent Liability in Contract and Tort — Construction Contracts
Where by contract a party agrees to perform works and it is an express or implied term that the work will be done with reasonable care and skill, the party owes a concurrent duty of care in tort unless the contract excludes or modifies such duty. In construction contracts, a contractual obligation to carry out works with reasonable skill and care creates a performance obligation analogous to the standard of care in negligence, and a plaintiff may sue in either contract or tort or both provided the requisite elements for each cause of action are established.
Tort Law — Professional Negligence — Construction Work — Standard of Care
The test for professional negligence is the standard of an ordinary skilled person exercising and professing to have that specialty skill. In construction contracts, where a contractor undertakes to supervise and direct work using best skill and attention, failure to exercise due diligence resulting in defective work including cracked plaster, damaged tiles, and poorly fitted frames constitutes breach of the duty of care and negligent performance.
Contract Law — Misrepresentation — Elements — Inducement and Materiality
For a statement to constitute actionable misrepresentation it must be a statement of existing fact (not opinion or law), must be intended to induce the representee to enter into the contract, must have actually induced entry into the contract, and must be material. The representee must show the representation was false both in its ordinary meaning and in the sense in which it was understood. Errors and defects occurring during contract performance do not constitute pre-contractual misrepresentation.
Contract Law — Damages — Special Damages — Proof
Special damages must be strictly proved with evidence showing particularity in accordance with pleadings and based on precise calculation to enable the defendant to assess the claim. The plaintiff is entitled to be awarded any items of special damages which can be proved with sufficient evidence even if other claimed items cannot be proved. Costs incurred for professional reports directly related to assessing contractor's defective work may constitute recoverable special damages where specifically pleaded and proved.
Contract Law — Damages — General Damages — Assessment — Restitutio in Integrum — Construction Defects
The principle for assessing damages for breach of construction contract is restitutio in integrum — the plaintiff should be restored, as far as money can do, to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. The measure of damages for defective work is either the diminution in value of the property resulting from defects or the reasonable cost of putting defects right, subject to considerations of reasonableness and mitigation of loss. The purpose of damages is to compensate the plaintiff, not to punish the defendant.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (12)

  • Golden Construction Co. Ltd v Stateco (Nig) Ltd (2014) 8 NWLR (pt 1408)
  • Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145
  • Tesco Stores Ltd v Costain Construction Ltd & Others [2003] EWHC 1487 (TCC)
  • Go Dante Yap v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG [2011] 4 SLR 559
  • Boschcon Civil & Electrical Construction Company (U) Ltd v Salini Costruttori Spa (Civil Suit No. 151 of 2008)
  • Pasley v Freeman 3 T.R. 51, 100 ER 450 (KB)
  • Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1963] 2 All ER 575
  • Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] QB 801
  • Sempebwa v The Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (HCT-00-CC-CS-0954-2004)
  • The Kriti Palm [2007] All ER (Comm) 667
  • Great Eastern Hotel Co Ltd v John Laing Construction Ltd & Anor [2005] EWHC 181
  • Palmer Birch vs Michael Lloyd

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mugambe v Kayita and Another (Civil Suit No. 339 of 2020) [2022] UGHCCD 117 (8 August 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.