Wakilii

Mumbere Cmpany Limited v China Railway No. 5 Engineering Group Company Limited (Civil Suit 99 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 145 · 2023 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 arising from four sub-contracts for road construction works
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with awards of special and general damages, interest, and costs

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.

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 court held that the defendant breached four sub-contracts for road construction works by failing to pay for completed and approved works. The plaintiff established that edge beam works totalling UGX 161,387,000, 17 bus bays at UGX 98,320,350, and stone pitching works at UGX 50,781,000 were completed. The defendant failed to prove materials supplied or payments made beyond UGX 17,000,000. The plaintiff was awarded special damages of UGX 186,942,750 and general damages of UGX 60,000,000 with 18% interest per annum.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with awards of special and general damages, interest, and costs

Facts

The plaintiff and defendant entered into four sub-contracts on different dates for road construction works: two edge beam contracts (25 January 2018 and 15 January 2019), one stone pitching contract (17 November 2018), and one bus bays contract (16 July 2018). The plaintiff completed substantial works under all contracts which were approved by the consultant and contractor representatives through laboratory tests and inspections. The parties entered a partial consent settlement on 22 September 2020 agreeing that 17 bus bays, approved metres of edge beams, and all stone pitch works had been completed. Under the contracts, the defendant was obliged to supply materials and pay the plaintiff monthly for works done. The defendant supplied materials valued by the plaintiff at UGX 110,000,000 and paid only UGX 17,000,000. The plaintiff claimed the remaining balance of UGX 186,942,750 for completed works. The defendant raised a bare denial defence without specifically pleading amounts allegedly paid or materials supplied.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant breached the contracts signed with the Plaintiff.
  2. Whether the Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff and if yes, to what extent.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Defendant breached its various contracts with the Plaintiff.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded special damages of UGX 186,942,750.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 60,000,000 for breach of contract.
  • Special damages to carry interest at 18% per annum from the date of institution of suit until payment in full.
  • General damages to carry interest at 18% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Breach of Contract — Failure to Pay Contract Price
A breach of contract occurs when one party in a binding agreement fails to deliver according to the terms of the agreement, entitling the injured party to treat the contract as discharged and sue for damages.
Burden of Proof — Balance of Probabilities
In civil matters, the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff to prove the case on a balance of probabilities, including establishing both the existence of a contract and its breach by the defendant.
Pleadings — Inadequacy of General Denial
A written statement of defence consisting of mere evasive or general denials without answering points of substance or raising a specific defence offends Order 6 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules and does not disclose a reasonable answer to the plaint, precluding the defendant from adducing evidence on unpleaded matters.
Evidence — Parties Bound by Pleadings
Parties are bound by their pleadings, and a defendant may not raise claims or defences in evidence that were not pleaded in the written statement of defence, as such evidence constitutes a departure from previous pleadings in violation of Order 6 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Evidence — Proof of Documents
Documents adduced in court must be proved through primary evidence under section 61 of the Evidence Act; pleadings and annexures thereto do not amount to evidence unless conceded by the opposite party and formally admitted as exhibits by the court.
General Damages — Assessment for Breach of Contract
The award of general damages for breach of contract is at the discretion of court based on factors including the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience suffered, and the extent of the defendant's conduct; a plaintiff who suffers damage must be put in the same position they would have been in had they not suffered the wrong.
Interest — Compensatory Principle
Interest represents the profit a party might have made if that party had use of the money, or conversely the loss suffered because of non-use of the money; a party kept out of money that was their due entitlement is entitled to interest to compensate for lost investment opportunities.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (14)

  • Lugazi Progressive School and Another v Serunjogi and Others [2001-2005] HCB 12
  • Mogas (U) Ltd v Benzina (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 88 of 2013) [2017] UGCommC 92
  • Kagoye Francis v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2019)
  • Kamugira v National Housing Construction (High Court Civil Suit No. 27 of 2008)
  • Ben Byabashaija and Another v Attorney General (1992) 1 KALR 161
  • Joshi v Uganda Sugar Factory (1968) EA 570
  • Semalulu v Nakitto (High Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2008)
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 13 of 1993)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Charles Acire v Myaana Engola (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Scheme Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Spring Freight Logistics Ltd v Holdings International Ltd and 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 556 of 2019)
  • Jennifer Behange and Others v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mumbere Cmpany Limited v China Railway No. 5 Engineering Group Company Limited (Civil Suit 99 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 145 (17 November 2023)
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.