Wakilii

Mukisa & Another v Lutwama (Civil Suit No. 682 of 2018)

High Court · [2020] UGHCLD 10 · 2020 Judgment for Plaintiffs AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation
Decision
Contract terminated; Defendant ordered to refund purchase price plus general damages with interest

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

Held that a vendor's failure to deliver vacant possession as contractually undertaken constitutes a fundamental breach terminating the contract. The plaintiffs were entitled to rescission and refund of the purchase price with interest, plus general damages for inconvenience. However, the vendor was not liable for the plaintiffs' failure to conduct a pre-sale search that would have revealed an existing caveat. Mesne profits and punitive damages were not recoverable where the contract had been rescinded.

Outcome

Contract terminated; Defendant ordered to refund purchase price plus general damages with interest

Facts

The plaintiffs purchased five acres of land from the defendant for UGX 30,000,000 on 30 September 2016. The sale agreement provided that the defendant would remove a squatter occupying one and a half acres and deliver vacant possession. The defendant handed over signed transfer forms and the certificate of title. During the transfer process in May 2017, the plaintiffs conducted a search and discovered that the land had been caveated on 6 September 2016, before the sale. The defendant failed to remove the squatter or deliver vacant possession. The plaintiffs brought suit alleging breach of contract by fraudulent misrepresentation, seeking termination of the agreement and refund of monies at current market value. The matter proceeded ex parte after the defendant failed to appear.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant breached the contract of sale of the suit land with the Plaintiffs.
  2. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to any remedies.

Orders

  • The sale agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant in respect of land comprised in Bulemezi Block 74 Plot 18 at Bungiro is hereby terminated.
  • The Defendant shall refund UGX 30,000,000 (thirty million shillings only) as monies paid under the said agreement, with interest at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of institution of the suit until payment in full.
  • The Defendant shall pay UGX 15,000,000 (fifteen million shillings only) to the Plaintiffs as general damages, with interest at a rate of 12% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiffs the costs of this suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Breach of Contract — Fundamental Breach — Failure to Deliver Vacant Possession
Where a vendor undertakes in a sale agreement to deliver vacant possession by removing squatters, the failure to fulfil that obligation constitutes a breach of contract, and where that obligation is of fundamental importance to the contract's purpose, the breach may entitle the innocent party to treat the contract as terminated.
Contract Law — Remedies for Breach — Termination — Fundamental Terms
Under Section 35 of the Contracts Act 2010, where a party's failure to perform a fundamental contractual obligation negates the whole purpose and intention of the parties in entering the contract, the innocent party is entitled to treat the contract as having terminated and seek appropriate remedies including refund of monies paid.
Contract Law — Compensation for Breach — Special Damages — Remote and Indirect Loss
Under Section 65(2) of the Contracts Act 2010, compensation for breach of contract is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. A claim for refund at current market value rather than the price actually paid constitutes a remote and indirect loss not within the contemplation of the parties at contract formation.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment — Inconvenience
General damages for breach of contract may be awarded for inconvenience caused to the innocent party, which need not be proved but can be inferred. Such damages are awarded not to punish the wrong party but to restore the innocent party to the position they would have been in had the damage not occurred.
Land & Property — Pre-Sale Search — Duty of Purchaser — Negligence
A purchaser who fails to conduct a formal search before executing a sale agreement and later discovers an existing caveat cannot hold the vendor liable for that encumbrance where the failure to search constituted negligence on the purchaser's part.
Damages & Quantum — Mesne Profits — Availability Where Contract Rescinded
Mesne profits under Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act are only recoverable by a party denied possession of land. Where a purchaser has chosen to rescind a land sale contract, they are not entitled to possession and therefore cannot recover mesne profits.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Discretion — Rate and Period
Under Section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, interest is discretionary and may be awarded on special damages from the date of filing suit where the defendant has kept the plaintiff out of money and had the use of it. Interest on general damages should only run from the date of judgment, as such damages are only ascertained at trial.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (13)

  • Ssempa v Kambagabire (High Court Civil Suit No. 408 of 2014)
  • Gas Marketing Limited v ARCO British Limited and Others [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 209
  • Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd v L. Schuler A.G. [1974] AC 235
  • In re Sandwell Park Colliery Company: Field v The Company [1929] 1 Ch 277
  • Photo Production Ltd v Securico Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827
  • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Charles Acire v M. Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Fredrick J.K Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd and 5 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume David Kitamirike (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2010)
  • Hambutt's Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank & Pump Co. Ltd [1970] 1 QB 447
  • Kakubhai Mohanlal v Warid Telecom Uganda (High Court Civil Suit No. 224 of 2011)

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.

Mukisa_&_Another_v_Lutwama_(Civil_Suit_No._682_of_2018)_[2020]_UGHCLD_10_(4_June_2020)
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.