Mukankusi v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 06 of 2011)

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 upheld the trial judge's award of UGX 6,000,000 special damages (refund of the bid price) and UGX 4,000,000 general damages for the respondent's failure to deliver an auctioned vehicle. The court found the appellant had failed to mitigate her loss by rejecting the offered refund, and that her claimed loan interest of 20% per week (1,040% per annum) was unforeseeable and too remote from the breach. Only ground 3 succeeded: the court held interest on special damages runs from the date of loss while interest on general damages runs from the date of judgment. It fixed interest at 20% per annum on special damages and 8% per annum on general damages. The appeal was allowed in part.

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part: interest rates and commencement dates on special and general damages varied; remaining grounds dismissed

Facts

The respondent advertised a Toyota Hiace vehicle for sale by auction in January 2005. The appellant submitted a winning bid of UGX 6,000,000 and paid the sum, and release formalities were completed. However, the importer of the vehicle reclaimed it and the respondent failed to deliver the vehicle, instead offering to refund the bid price. The appellant rejected the refund. She sued in the High Court (Commercial Division) seeking specific performance, special damages of UGX 147,907,390 (representing principal and accumulated interest at 20% per week on a UGX 8,000,000 loan she allegedly took to finance the transaction), general damages, exemplary damages and interest. The trial court awarded only UGX 6,000,000 as special damages (refund of the bid price) and UGX 4,000,000 general damages, with interest from the date of judgment. The respondent had been unaware of the loan or the appellant's intention to resell the vehicle. The appellant appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the trial judge erred in concluding that the appellant had failed to mitigate her loss.
2. Whether the general damages awarded were so manifestly low as to warrant appellate interference.
3. Whether the trial judge erred in failing to specify the interest rate and the date from which interest on special damages was to run.
4. Whether the appellant's claimed special damages (loan interest at 20% per week) were foreseeable and recoverable as flowing from the breach of contract.

Orders

• Appeal allowed in part in relation to ground 3.
• Appeal dismissed in relation to grounds 1, 2 and 4.
• Special damages of UGX 6,000,000 to attract interest at 20% per annum from the date it was paid to the respondent till payment in full.
• General damages to attract interest at 8% per annum from the date of judgment of the court below till payment in full.
• Appellant awarded one quarter (1/4) of the costs on appeal; respondent awarded three quarters (3/4) of its costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.30
• Bank of Uganda Act s.39
• Civil Procedure Act s.26

Cases cited (13)

• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda [1999] UGSC
• [2010] UGSC 8
• Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1999)
• Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] 2 All ER 16
• Iron and Steel Wares Ltd v G W Martyrs & Company (1940) 7 ULR 146
• Thai Airways International Public Co Ltd v KI Holdings Co Ltd & Anor [2015] EWHC 1250 (Comm)
• [1996] UGSC 5
• Celtel (U) Ltd v Proplan Partners (Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2003)
• Ecta (U) Ltd v Geraldine Namubiru and Anor (supra)
• [2012] UGSC 4
• Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
• Koufos v C Czarnikow Ltd [1967] 3 All ER 387
• [2005] UGSC 9

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.

• Kasasira v Yalelo Uganda Limited (Labour Dispute Reference 296 of 2022)
• Mawanda v Litespeed Job Hub Limited (Labour Dispute Reference 74 of 2023)
• Musimenta v United Bank for africa (Labour Dispute 210 of 2020)
• Musmenta v United Bank of Africa (Labour Dispute Reference 210 of 2020)
• Owarwo v Total (U) Ltd (HCCS 5 of 2021)
• Mukanusi v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal Reference 5 of 2022)

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