Wakilii

Munyiga v Asiimwe (Civil Suit No. 525 of 2013)

High Court · [2015] UGCOMMC 187 · 2015 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 and money had and received, with counterclaim for commission
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with refund of monies paid, damages, interest, and costs; counterclaim dismissed

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 High Court held that the defendant breached an oral contract to procure and deliver goods from China within the agreed timeframe. The plaintiff could not sustain an action for money had and received where a contract existed and the proper remedy was for breach of contract. The court ordered refund of GBP 21,530 and USD 12,650, awarded general and punitive damages of UGX 10,000,000, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim for commission on the ground that the alleged commission agreement was not reduced to writing as required by the Contracts Act.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with refund of monies paid, damages, interest, and costs; counterclaim dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff, a Ugandan resident in the United Kingdom, contracted the defendant to construct her house in Entebbe. After completing a shell house for UGX 127,586,582, the defendant persuaded the plaintiff to send him to China to procure goods to finish and furnish the house, promising 50% savings and delivery within five weeks. The plaintiff disbursed GBP 21,530 in three instalments in October 2012 and later USD 12,650 in March 2013 to cover purchase, transportation, clearance, and the defendant's travel expenses. The defendant never delivered the goods, claiming they were at the port in Mombasa awaiting additional payment for clearance and transport. The plaintiff's witnesses testified that the funds disbursed were sufficient for all expenses. The defendant counterclaimed for 10% commission on the total construction expenditure, which the plaintiff denied agreeing to.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a valid contract between the plaintiff and defendant and if so, whether the defendant breached the contract.
  2. Whether the plaintiff can sustain against the defendant an action for money had and received.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought.
  4. Whether the plaintiff is liable to pay to the defendant a 10% commission on the total expenditure of construction of the plaintiff's house.
  5. Whether the defendant/counter claimant is entitled to the other remedies sought.

Orders

  • Refund of GBP 21,530 to the plaintiff.
  • Refund of USD 12,650 to the plaintiff.
  • General and punitive damages of UGX 10,000,000 awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Interest of 5% per annum on the refund sums from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
  • Interest of 20% per annum on the general and punitive damages from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Counterclaim dismissed in its entirety.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation — Oral Contracts — Validity
A contract may be oral, written, partly oral and partly written, or implied from the conduct of the parties, and is valid where there is agreement with free consent of parties with capacity to contract, for lawful consideration and with lawful object, with intention to be legally bound.
Contract Law — Breach — Express Breach — Failure to Deliver Goods
Breach of contract occurs where one party fails to carry out a term of the contract, breaking the obligation which the contract imposes and conferring a right of action for damages on the injured party.
Contract Law — Remedies — Money Had and Received — Availability Where Contract Exists
An action for money had and received cannot be sustained where there is a clear contractual relationship between the parties and the proper remedy is an action for breach of contract rather than quasi-contract.
Contract Law — Formalities — Writing Requirement — Commission Agreements
A claim for commission under an alleged oral agreement fails where the agreement was not reduced to writing as required by section 10(5) of the Contracts Act and the claimant has not otherwise proved the agreement.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Basis for Award — Deprivation of Use of Money
Interest is payable on the basis that the defendant has kept the plaintiff out of his money and has had use of it himself, and the defendant ought to compensate the plaintiff for the deprivation suffered.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (6)

  • Jamba Soita Ali v David Salaam (Civil Suit No. 0400 of 2005)
  • Obongo and another v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1972] 1 EA 91
  • Masembe v Sugar Corporation and Another [2002] EA 434
  • Ruth Aliu and 136 Others v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 1100 of 1998)
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Ltd (Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006)
  • John Kagwa v Kolinsaat Turizm & 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 0318 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Munyiga v Asiimwe (Civil Suit No. 525 of 2013) [2015] UGCommC 187 (9 December 2015)
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.