Mujuni Ruhemba v Skanka Jensen (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2000)

Observed later treatment

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 of Appeal held that a contract of sale of goods required to be in writing under section 6 of the Sale of Goods Act (goods above two hundred shillings) can only be varied by a subsequent written agreement, not orally or by conduct. The appellant failed to produce written evidence of variation of the transport charges, so his claim for the higher rate failed. However, the court found the trial judge erred in relying on the auditor's report which excluded invoices for deliveries in early September 1998, for which the appellant remained entitled to payment. The appeal was allowed in part and the matter remitted for computation of the sum due for that period. Each party to bear own costs.

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to the trial judge, assisted by the court-appointed auditor, to determine the amount due for sand delivered between 1-8 September 1998

Facts

The appellant and respondent executed a written contract on 3 March 1998 for the supply of natural sand at the respondent's Mbarara construction site at shs.3,200 per cubic metre. The respondent was to provide transport for the first month, after which the appellant would provide transport at shs.8,000 per cubic metre. The appellant alleged that after two days the respondent stopped providing transport, and the parties orally varied the contract so he would provide transport at shs.60,000 per trip. He supplied sand using his own transport, receipts were acknowledged, and payments were made on account. A dispute arose over a claimed balance of shs.18,760,130 attributable to higher transport charges. By consent an auditor was appointed, who reported the disagreement concerned transport rates and that the respondent had paid all sums due under the contract. The trial court dismissed the claim, finding no variation had been proved.

Issues

1. Whether the written contract for the supply of sand was varied by a subsequent agreement between the parties as to transport charges.
2. Whether the trial judge properly evaluated the evidence, including the court-appointed auditor's report.
3. Whether the trial judge erred in making no order as to costs.

Orders

• Appeal allowed in part.
• The trial judge, with the assistance of the court-appointed auditor, to determine the rightful amount due to the appellant for sand delivered between September 1-8, 1998, to be paid to him.
• Each party to bear his own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Sale of Goods Act Cap 79 s.6

Cases cited (6)

• Morris v Baron & Co [1918] AC 1
• United Dominions Trust (Jamaica) Ltd v Shoucair [1969] AC 340
• Goss v Lord Nugent (1833) 5 B & Ad 58
• Peters v Sunday Post [1958] EA 424
• Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co Ltd [1968] EA 123
• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)

Cases citing this judgment (6)

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.

• Nkalubo Denis v Crown Beverages Limited (Labour Dispute Reference 320 of 2019)
• Kamulindwa v Alpha Gama Engineering Ltd (HCT – 01 – CV – CA No. 025 of 2015)
• Twed Consulting Company Ltd v Springwood Capital Partners Ltd (Civil Suit No. 550 of 2014)
• Nipun Norattam Bhatia v Crane Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 75 of 2006)
• Arch Katerega & Anor v Uganda Posts Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 20 of 2010)
• andes (EAS) Ltd v Akoong Mulik Systems & 2 Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 184 of 2008)

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