Wakilii

Mwesigye & 30 Ors v National Forestry Authority (Civil Suit No. 270 of 2010)

High Court · [2012] UGCOMMC 115 · 2012 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 arising from nonpayment for forestry maintenance services
Decision
Five plaintiffs awarded special and general damages with interest; defendant ordered to pay all amounts proved

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 contractors who had performed forestry maintenance work under contracts with the National Forestry Authority were entitled to payment notwithstanding the absence of certificates of completion. The defendant was precluded from relying on lack of certification because this defence was never pleaded. The court awarded special damages totalling UGX 11,905,000, general damages of UGX 15,000,000, and interest at 18% per annum on special damages and 8% on general damages.

Outcome

Five plaintiffs awarded special and general damages with interest; defendant ordered to pay all amounts proved

Facts

Between 2008 and 2009, 31 individuals entered into contracts with the National Forestry Authority to provide forestry maintenance services including clearing, hoeing, weeding and climber cutting in Rwoho Central Reserve and Bugumba Central Forest Reserve. The plaintiffs completed the work by June 2009 but were not paid. They filed suit claiming UGX 168,470,000. The defendant subsequently paid UGX 145,972,000, leaving UGX 22,498,000 owing to nine claimants. At trial, only five plaintiffs pursued their claims. The defendant's defence was a general denial, though it later admitted some amounts were due and argued the remainder was not certified. The defendant explained delayed payment was due to frozen accounts in September 2009.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the remedies prayed for

Orders

  • It is declared that the plaintiffs whose claims were outstanding as indicated above are entitled to payments as proved.
  • It is ordered that the plaintiffs whose respective claims have been proved as above be paid by the defendant.
  • Interest of 18% per annum is awarded to the respective plaintiffs as particularized above.
  • UGX 15,000,000 is awarded as general damages.
  • Interest on the general damages is awarded at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of judgment till payment in full.
  • Costs are awarded to the said plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Departure from Pleadings — Effect of Failure to Plead Defence
A party will not be allowed to succeed on a case not set up in its pleadings and cannot at trial change its case or set up a case inconsistent with its pleadings except by way of amendment; where a defendant fails to plead a specific defence such as lack of certificate of completion, it is precluded from relying on that defence at trial.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Evasive Denials — Requirements of Order 6 Rules 8 and 10
Order 6 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires denials to be specific on each and every allegation made by the opposite party; Order 6 rule 10 prohibits evasive denial of allegations; a general denial of all allegations including the existence of contracts later admitted in evidence seriously offends these provisions.
Contract Law — Breach — Payment Obligations — Contractual Conditions Precedent
Where a contract requires certification of work before payment but the requirement for certification was not pleaded as the reason for non-payment, and the defendant's own correspondence acknowledges the work was completed and attributes non-payment to frozen accounts, the defendant cannot later rely on lack of certification as a defence.
Contract Law — Proof of Performance — Inference from Non-Termination
Where work is contracted and the contract provides for termination in the event of non-performance but the contract was not terminated, it may be inferred on a balance of probabilities that the work was performed and payment is due.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Requirement of Specific Pleading and Strict Proof
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; a claim for interest cannot be based on an amount that was never pleaded in the original plaint even if mentioned in an amended plaint where no documents showing dates of payment for that larger amount were tendered in evidence.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Breach of Contract — Inconvenience and Hardship
General damages are such as the law presumes to be the natural or probable consequence of the act complained of as the immediate, direct and proximate result; where a government institution enters into contracts and fails to honour its obligations thereby causing hardship including forced sales of property, arrest and imprisonment of contractors, general damages are awardable to atone for the suffering.
Damages & Quantum — Interest — Pre-judgment and Post-judgment Interest Rates
Section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the court to award interest for any period prior to institution of suit; the basis of an award of interest is that the defendant has kept the plaintiff out of his money; the court may award interest at 18% per annum on special damages from the date payment became due (allowing a grace period for processing) and 8% per annum on general damages from date of judgment.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (7)

  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)
  • Mustapha Ramathan & Osman Kassim Ramathan v Century Bottling Co Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 431 of 2006)
  • Eladam Enterprises Ltd v S.G.S (U) Ltd & Others (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002)
  • Harbutt's "Plasticine" Ltd v Wayne Tank and Pump Co. Ltd (1970) 1 QB 447
  • Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995)
  • Stroms v Hutchinson [1905] A.C 515
  • Superior Construction and Engineering Ltd v Notay Engineering Industries (Ltd) (High Court Civil Suit No. 702 of 1989)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mwesigye & 30 Ors v National Forestry Authority (Civil Suit No. 270 of 2010) [2012] UGCommC 115 (31 August 2012)
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.