Wakilii

Nadiope v Mwebe (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1939)

East African Court of Appeal · [1939] EACA 44 · 1939 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from High Court judgment on breach of contract claim
Decision
Appeal partly allowed with nominal damages of Sh. 100 awarded; special damages claim 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 Court held that the High Court and Lukiko Court had concurrent jurisdiction over the matter. On breach of contract to lend money, the appellant was entitled to nominal general damages assessed at Sh. 100, as no evidence showed the property exceeded the purchase price in value. Special damages of Sh. 200 were disallowed as not strictly proved.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed with nominal damages of Sh. 100 awarded; special damages claim dismissed

Facts

The respondent agreed to lend the appellant Sh. 6,000 to enable payment of a deposit on an estate the appellant had agreed to purchase for Sh. 25,000. The respondent provided a post-dated cheque but subsequently stopped payment, preventing the appellant from completing the purchase. The sale to the appellant was cancelled for non-payment of the deposit. The respondent then purchased the same estate for Sh. 30,000. The appellant sued for Sh. 15,200 damages, claiming loss on the bargain (Sh. 5,000), additional loss from an alleged offer of Sh. 40,000 from a third party (Sh. 10,000, later abandoned), and motor expenses (Sh. 200). The High Court awarded only Sh. 200 as special damages. Both parties were natives of Uganda and the cause of action arose in Buganda.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter given that both parties were natives and the cause of action arose in Buganda.
  2. Whether the appellant was entitled to general damages for breach of contract to lend money.
  3. Whether special damages of Sh. 200 were properly proved and recoverable.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed to the extent of Sh. 100 general damages.
  • Cross-appeal allowed as to special damages.
  • Award of Sh. 200 special damages set aside.
  • No costs to either party in the Court of Appeal.
  • Order for costs in the High Court to stand.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction — Concurrent Jurisdiction — High Court and Native Courts
Where both parties are natives of the Protectorate and the cause of action arises in Buganda, the Lukiko Court of Buganda and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction, and the plaintiff is entitled to elect in which court to sue.
Breach of Contract — Damages — General Damages
Upon proof of breach of contract, a plaintiff is entitled to general damages being those which are the direct, natural, or probable consequence of the breach, even where the plaintiff has incorrectly assessed the quantum of such damages in the pleadings.
General Damages — Assessment — Nominal Damages
Where a plaintiff proves breach of contract but adduces no evidence that the subject matter was of greater value than the contract price, and where the purchase was to be funded by borrowed money at interest, the plaintiff is entitled only to nominal general damages.
Pleading — Special Damages — Proof
Special damages must be strictly proved. A claim for special damages will fail where the plaintiff concedes that the particulars of such damages were not proved at trial.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Uganda Order in Council, 1902, Article 15(1)
  • Uganda Courts Ordinance (Cap 39) s.24
  • Native Courts in Buganda Proclamation Clause 1(a)A

Cases cited (1)

  • Stroms Bruks Aktie Bolag v Hutchison (1905 AC 515)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nadiope v Mwebe (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1939) [1939] EACA 44 (1 January 1939)
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.